http://scienceforsustainability.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Sisussman&feedformat=atomScienceForSustainability - User contributions [en-gb]2024-03-28T23:35:37ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.1http://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_pricing&diff=5534Carbon pricing2023-10-02T10:47:02Z<p>Sisussman: /* EU */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:2]]<br />
[[Category:Economics]]<br />
[[Category:Carbon pricing]]<br />
<br />
Imposing a price on carbon is intended to raise the cost of activities which create {{CO2}} emissions and thus encourage alternative activities with lower emissions. For example if generating electricity from unabated combustion of fossil fuels becomes more expensive then using fossil fuels with [[CCS | Carbon Capture and Storage]] may become financially more competitive and lead to industry voluntarily investing in the equipment to remove {{CO2}} from existing power stations, and other {{CO2}}-emitting processes such as cement, steel and glass production.<br />
<br />
Carbon pricing is an alternative mechanism to subsidising low-carbon technologies or enacting laws banning {{CO2}} emissions, or banning the use of certain technologies and/or mandating others. [[Economics | Economists]] generally consider that carbon pricing works better than subsidies or mandates as the main way of achieving changes in emissions, with the other methods being more appropriate for making smaller adjustments to the market e.g. to encourage development of newer technologies.<ref><br />
See e.g. "[https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/in-defense-of-picking-winners/ In Defense of Picking Winners]"<br />
by Severin Borenstein<br />
on the Energy Institute at Haas blog<br />
on 3 Mar 2014<br />
</ref><br />
Heavy reliance on mandates or subsidies rather than carbon pricing can have the perverse effect of increasing the cost of solutions whilst reducing the economic incentive to develop cheaper options.<ref><br />
In a post "[https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/time-to-unleash-the-carbon-market/ Time to Unleash the Carbon Market?]"<br />
on the Energy Institute at HAAS blog on 20 June 2016,<br />
Meredith Fowlie shows how mandating particular solutions results in inappropriately low carbon prices and expensive overall solutions.<br />
<br><br><br />
In a blog post "[http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2016/09/20/a-key-moment-for-california-climate-policy/ A Key Moment for California Climate Policy]" on 20 Sep 2016, Robert Stavins observes:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
One example of this is the attempt to employ aggressive sector-based targets through technology-driven policies, such as the Low Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS). In the presence of a binding cap-and-trade regime, the LCFS has the perverse effect of relocating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to other sectors but not reducing net emissions, while driving up statewide abatement costs, and suppressing allowance prices in the cap-and-trade market, thereby reducing incentives for technological change. That is bad news all around. These perverse outcomes render such policies of little interest or value to other regions of the world.<br />
<br />
The magnitude of the economic distortion is illustrated by the fact that allowances in the California cap-and-trade market have recently been trading in the range of $12 to $13 per ton of CO2, while LCFS credits have traded this summer for about $80 per ton of CO2.<br />
}}<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
The IPCC regards carbon pricing as a necessary part of AGW mitigation efforts.<ref><br />
According the the IPCC AR5 sysnthesis report on [http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_adaptation.php Mitigation and Adaptation] ''(section 4.4)'': {{quote|<br />
In principle, mechanisms that set a carbon price, including cap and trade systems and carbon taxes, can achieve mitigation in a cost-effective way, but have been implemented with diverse effects due in part to national circumstances as well as policy design. The short-run environmental effects of cap and trade systems have been limited as a result of loose caps or caps that have not proved to be constraining (limited evidence, medium agreement). In some countries, tax-based policies specifically aimed at reducing GHG emissions — alongside technology and other policies — have helped to weaken the link between GHG emissions and gross domestic product (GDP) (high confidence). In addition, in a large group of countries, fuel taxes (although not necessarily designed for the purpose of mitigation) have had effects that are akin to sectoral carbon taxes (robust evidence, medium agreement). Revenues from carbon taxes or auctioned emission allowances are used in some countries to reduce other taxes and/or to provide transfers to low‐income groups. This illustrates the general principle that mitigation policies that raise government revenue generally have lower social costs than approaches which do not.}}<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
In the largest public statement of economists in history, 3589 U.S. Economists, 4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve, 28 Nobel Laureate Economists, and 15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers call for a carbon tax and dividend scheme.<ref><br />
[https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS] Climate Leadership Council; 17 Jan 2019</ref><br />
{{Quote|<br />
Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.<br />
<br />
I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.<br />
<br />
II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.<br />
<br />
III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long- term investment in clean-energy alternatives.<br />
<br />
IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.<br />
<br />
V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Morally, carbon pricing can be regarded as the just approach, making the polluter pay for creating pollution whose costs would otherwise fall on society as whole. In [[economics]] terms the costs of pollution which are not paid for by the polluter are regarded as external costs (or just ''externalities'') and the burden of these costs falling on society as a whole rather than the polluter are seen as a ''market failure''. Pricing internalises these costs and corrects for the failure of the market. <br />
<br />
The fossil fuel industries generally back carbon pricing<ref><br />
'''Exxon, BP and Shell back carbon tax proposal to curb emissions'''<br />
by Oliver Milman<br />
in The Guardian<br />
on 20 Jun 2017<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/20/exxon-bp-shell-oil-climate-change [article]]<br />
{{Quote| Oil giants ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Total are among a group of large corporations supporting a plan to tax carbon dioxide emissions in order to address climate change. The companies have revealed their support for the Climate Leadership Council, a group of senior Republican figures that in February proposed a $40 fee on each ton of CO2 emitted as part of a “free-market, limited government” response to climate change. The fossil fuel companies announced their backing for the plan alongside other major firms including Unilever, PepsiCo, General Motors and Johnson & Johnson. In a full-page newspaper ad on Tuesday, the companies called for a “consensus climate solution that bridges partisan divides, strengthens our economy and protects our shared environment”. Exxon and the others were listed as founding members of the plan, alongside the green groups Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy. }}<br />
</ref><br />
whether through principle, or as the lesser or what they see as worse alternatives.<ref><br />
'''Exxon is lobbying for a carbon tax. There is, obviously, a catch.'''<br />
by Umair Irfan<br />
in Vox<br />
on 18 Oct 2018<br />
[https://www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17983866/climate-change-exxon-carbon-tax-lawsuit [article]]<br />
{{quote|The oil giant wants immunity from lawsuits that would make it pay for the damages of climate change.}}<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
Pricing can also reward external benefits such as carbon sequestration through [[rewilding]], [[reforestation]] and other [[CDR | Carbon Dioxide Reduction]] schemes. This could be achieved either in a purely economic scheme of carbon taxation, with CDR attracting negative rates of tax, or by using revenues from carbon pricing to fund selected schemes, as in Colombia and Costa Rica.<ref><br />
See "[https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/02/13/carbon-taxes-key-stop-deforestation/ Carbon taxes are key to stop deforestation]"<br />
in Climate Home News<br />
on 13 Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|Economists and scientists agree that carbon taxes help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating an incentive for people to use less fossil fuels. But that’s not all they can do, as we and our co-authors – ministers from both countries – note in an essay published in the journal Nature.<br />
<br />
Carbon taxes are also effective at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions created by the destruction of tropical rainforests, making them even more critical to addressing the climate crisis.<br />
<br />
If tropical deforestation were a country, it would be the world’s largest emitter after China and the United States. Moreover, tropical rainforests remove carbon from the atmosphere: The Amazon, for example absorbs five percent of global carbon emissions every year.<br />
<br />
This means that when we cut down our rainforests, we also eliminate one of our best tools for addressing the climate crisis.<br />
<br />
But in both Colombia and Costa Rica, deforestation rates are down, while revenues to fund forest restoration efforts are up.<br />
<br />
The programmes have different structures but similar impacts. Since 1997, Costa Rica’s carbon tax has helped to protect and restore lands across a quarter of the country. It generates $26.5 million in revenue every year, which the government then pays out to farmers and landowners that commit to rainforest protection or restoration on their property.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Colombia’s programme has generated more than $250 million in revenue over the past three years. More than a quarter of that revenue goes toward environmental causes such as reducing deforestation and monitoring protected areas.<br />
<br />
These programmes also offer a counterpoint to the argument that carbon taxes disproportionately impact people with lower incomes.<br />
<br />
In Costa Rica, the government helps lower-income residents to complete their applications, and it prioritises lower-income regions when distributing payments. As a result, two out of every five people who receive a payment from the programme live below the poverty line.<br />
<br />
We wanted to see what would happen if other countries adopted similar policies, so we analysed their potential impact on 12 countries with tropical rainforests across Africa, Asia and South America.<br />
<br />
Our model found that if all 12 countries adopted a policy like Colombia’s, these countries would collectively generate $1.8 billion every year. If they decided to adopt an even more ambitious proposal in the face of increasing global emissions, their revenue would soar to nearly $13 billion — equivalent to the GDP of Nicaragua.<br />
<br />
Either scenario would have a profound impact on protection and restoration efforts. Countries facing the biggest threats from deforestation, like Indonesia, would have robust funding streams to help restore devastated landscapes.<br />
<br />
Other countries, like Mexico and Malaysia, would be able to better monitor their protected areas. And every country would reduce the public’s reliance on fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
Our research shows that a carbon tax is one of the most effective investments a country can make, and a particularly easy initiative for countries with existing carbon offset programs like Peru and Ecuador.<br />
<br />
It offers a powerful tool for governments to fight deforestation, reduce emissions and support rural communities. Governments should consider it, and international institutions should encourage it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br>and<br />
"[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00324-w Adopt a carbon tax to protect tropical forests]"<br />
by Edward B. Barbier, Ricardo Lozano, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez & Sebastian Troëng<br />
in Nature<br />
on 12 Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
'''Case studies'''<br />
<br />
Colombia and Costa Rica have blazed a trail. Since 1997, Costa Rica has collected a 3.5% tax on fossil fuels. That now generates $26.5 million per year7 (see go.nature.com/3jdpmtk; in Spanish). The tax was negotiated in Costa Rica’s legislative assembly and supported by research from the non-governmental Tropical Science Center in San José, which examined the benefits of forests to the country’s economy. Implementation faced little opposition because the tax was incorporated with other fiscal reforms. Surveys of fossil-fuel users indicated that they did not object if revenues were directed to forest conservation.<br />
<br />
To invest the money raised, Costa Rica created its National Forest Fund (FONAFIFO). For example, from 1997 to 2018, the fund paid out to landowners across 23.5% of the country — an area of 1.2 million hectares. They spent the money on projects to protect 1 million hectares of mature forest and 71,000 hectares under reforestation. The fund supports conservation of mature forests, reforestation using native or exotic species, and agroforestry systems that use a mix of trees and crops or grasslands. It has disbursed $500 million to roughly 18,000 people, including those living across 162,000 hectares of Indigenous lands, such as the Cabécar and Bribri territories. Transparency and accountability of the fund’s operations are important to its success and continued popularity, so strategic and operational plans, budgets, financial statements and other details are available online (see [https://www.fonafifo.go.cr www.fonafifo.go.cr]).<br />
<br />
In the 1980s, Costa Rica had the highest deforestation rates in the world. Forest cover more than doubled between 1986 and 2013, rising to 53%8. Although estimates remain uncertain, we think that the fossil-fuel tax, along with a decline in the profitability of livestock and the expansion of protected areas and ecotourism, contributed to this. The programme funded by the fuel tax has been especially effective away from protected areas and their buffer zones.<br />
<br />
Colombia rolled out a carbon tax in 2016 as part of sweeping fiscal reforms. These garnered broad political support because of the need to raise money for the country’s peace process. The carbon tax was developed by the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, and is collected from companies producing or importing fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
Colombia’s tax of $5 per tonne of emitted carbon yielded revenues of $148 million in 2017 and $91 million in 2018 (see [https://go.nature.com/3b8ufkj go.nature.com/3b8ufkj]; in Spanish). These go to the Colombian Peace Fund (Fondo Colombia en Paz), from which 25% is used to manage coastal erosion, reduce and monitor deforestation, conserve water sources, protect strategic ecosystems and combat climate change. A further 5% is used to strengthen Colombia’s National System of Protected Areas. The revenue will be used for conservation projects in the following prioritized areas: flood-plain forests, tropical montane cloud forests, tropical humid forests, tropical savannahs and Andean forests. These projects are in the development phase and are waiting to access the fund. There is also a project to enhance the Colombian Environmental Information System (SIAC), a web-based platform that provides official information on the state of the country’s natural resources and which is under development (see [https://go.nature.com/2hthzqw go.nature.com/2hthzqw]; in Spanish).<br />
<br />
A mechanism called carbon neutrality allows companies to reduce their tax burdens by buying certified carbon credits from conservation and restoration projects in Colombia that adhere to internationally recognized standards. For example, a company might buy a credit in a region that promotes social initiatives with communities that are involved in managing these projects. This is the case for communities in the Chocó departmental region of northwestern Colombia, such as those living near towns including Acandí, El Carmen del Darién and Baudó.<br />
}}<br />
</ref><br />
----<br />
{{#evt:<br />
service=youtube<br />
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdUA0KiJAgA<br />
|alignment=right<br />
|container=frame<br />
|description='''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdUA0KiJAgA "How can we stop causing climate change?" - Dieter Helm]'''<br />
}}<br />
In this interview with Syed Kamall of the Institute of Economic Affairs (a UK free-market think tank), Professor Dieter Helm discusses the costs and economic mechanisms by which the UK could meet its 2050 target of net zero emissions. Dieter Helm is Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Economics at New College, Oxford, and has provided extensive advice to UK and European governments, including The Cost of Energy Review for the UK government in October 2017 and for the European Commission in preparing the Energy Roadmap 2030.<br />
{{clear}}<br />
----<br />
== Pricing at source v. destination ==<br />
<br />
Pricing can be done by either adding a price, e.g. through taxation, at source on carbon-emitting fuels, or by charging for carbon emissions. There are relatively few large sources of carbon-emitting fuels &ndash; a few thousand coal, oil and gas companies worldwide &ndash; but there are billions of emitters, including not only large power stations and industries but all internal combustion engines in ships, planes, cars and motorbikes, so it is practically impossible to apply pricing to all emissions. The European Emissions Trading Scheme covers only large emitters, responsible for less than half the EU's {{CO2}} emissions.<ref><br />
'''What is the EU emission trading scheme?'''<br />
by the European Environment Agency<br />
[https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/what-is-the-eu-emission-trading-scheme [website]]<br />
</ref><br />
However an emissions pricing scheme such as the EU's ETS can also cover emissions of other greenhouse gases and other pollutants under the same scheme.<br />
<br />
Pricing carbon-based fuels at source affects all users of the fuels, so is more likely to encourage individuals to reduce usage or switch to lower-carbon alternatives such as more fuel-efficient or electric vehicles. However by increasing the cost of fuels it does also have a social cost, hitting poorer people, for whom fuel costs tend to be a larger proportion of their budget, hardest. Some advocates of carbon pricing propose compensating those hardest hit, either by direct payments or by corresponding reduction in other taxes which also hit the poorest hardest, such as Value Added taxes. Such schems are described as ''revenue neutral'' because the government should end up with neither more nor less income from the measure.<br />
In France when a carbon tax was introduced without compensating measures the effect on particularly rural poor people who relied disproportionately on transport resulted in civil unrest which was manifested in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement gilets jaunes] movement.<br />
<br />
Economist Tim Harford describes the benefit of a carbon taxation (pricing at source) system by supposing that a conscientious consumer wishes to minimise their carbon footprint. They would have to gather data on every part of the production chain for everything they consider buying in order to make informed choices. However carbon pricing, by reflecting the {{CO2}} emissions embedded in goods and services in their prices, achieves much the same effect without any effort, or indeed desire, on the part of consumers to do the right thing.<ref><br />
'''Adapt: why success always starts with failure'''<br />
(ISBN-13: 978-0349121512) (ISBN-10: 0349121516)<br />
by Tim Harford<br />
See book description on Harford's website: [http://timharford.com/books/adapt/ [link]]<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
[http://pathsoflight.us/musing/2015/02/why-add-a-cost-to-ghg-instead-of-subsidizing-renewables/ Why add a cost to GHG instead of subsidizing renewables?] A Musing Environment; Feb 2015<br />
{{Quote|Do [] subsidies really help, or are there better ways to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? At the bottom, I partially address solar subsidies. This post focuses on why economists generally prefer correct pricing to subsidies.}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20161114150630/http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/statement-on-paris-climate-agreement-entering-into-force Statement on Paris climate agreement entering into force] ExxonMobil; 14 Nov 2016 ''(via Internet Archive Wayback Machine)''<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Today marks the entering into force of the Paris climate agreement. The agreement is an important step forward by world governments in addressing the serious risks of climate change.<br />
<br />
ExxonMobil supports the work of the Paris signatories, acknowledges the ambitious goals of this agreement and believes the company has a constructive role to play in developing solutions.<br />
<br />
We have been working for many years to reduce emissions in our operations and provide products that help consumers reduce their emissions.<br />
<br />
ExxonMobil continues to pursue technology solutions with leading scientists in industry, academia and nongovernmental institutions. We have invested nearly $7 billion since 2000 on lower-emissions initiatives such as energy efficiency, cogeneration, flare reduction, carbon capture and sequestration and research into next-generation biofuels.<br />
<br />
The Paris agreement and the initial Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) pledged by its signatories reflect the dual challenge of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring the world has adequate access to affordable and reliable supplies of energy.<br />
<br />
These INDCs also reflect understanding that all economic energy sources will be necessary to meet growing global demand, and that the evolution of the energy system toward lower atmospheric emissions will take time and commitment due to its enormous scale, capital intensity and complexity.<br />
<br />
As policymakers develop mechanisms to meet the Paris goals, ExxonMobil encourages them to focus on reducing emissions at the lowest cost to society, keeping in mind that access to affordable and reliable energy is critical to economic growth and improved standards of living worldwide.<br />
<br />
The best policy options to achieve that goal will be market-based, predictable, transparent and globally applicable to promote innovation and technology breakthroughs required to address climate change risks. ExxonMobil has for many years held the view that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the best option to fulfill these key principles.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Carbon Tax v Green Nudge ===<br />
'''Nudging out support for a carbon tax'''<br />
by David Hagmann, Emily H Ho, George Loewenstein<br />
in Nature Climate Change<br />
on 13 May 2019<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0474-0 [article]] <br />
{{quote| A carbon tax is widely accepted as the most effective policy for curbing carbon emissions but is controversial because it imposes costs on consumers. An alternative, ‘nudge,’ approach promises smaller benefits but with much lower costs. However, nudges aimed at reducing carbon emissions could have a pernicious indirect effect if they offer the promise of a ‘quick fix’ and thereby undermine support for policies of greater impact. Across six experiments, including one conducted with individuals involved in policymaking, we show that introducing a green energy default nudge diminishes support for a carbon tax. We propose that nudges decrease support for substantive policies by providing false hope that problems can be tackled without imposing considerable costs. Consistent with this account, we show that by minimizing the perceived economic cost of the tax and disclosing the small impact of the nudge, eliminates crowding-out without diminishing support for the nudge. }}<br />
<br />
== Canada ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-gerald-butts-and-catherine Gerald Butts and Catherine McKenna on Canada's carbon tax] David Roberts; Volts; 16 Feb 2022<br />
{{Q|In 2015, after nearly a decade of conservative rule, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party won a majority of seats in the Canadian parliament and control of the federal government. Part of Trudeau’s election platform was a carbon tax.<br />
<br />
The proposed tax had a few key features. First, it would only be imposed on provinces that did not have their own pricing system that met a few minimum requirements. And second, all the money collected from a province would be returned to that province as carbon dividends.<br />
<br />
After years of vigorous advocacy and negotiations, Trudeau’s liberals got the tax passed through parliament. It was implemented in early 2019, just before another federal election that became widely seen as a national referendum on the tax.<br />
<br />
Liberals won again. The carbon tax was affirmed. It’s going to stick — and rise to a whopping $170 a ton by 2030.<br />
<br />
This is a startling success story for climate policy that was largely overlooked in the US. We, uh, had some other stuff going on. But it’s worth taking a closer look at how Canada pulled it off.<br />
<br />
Two people at the core of the tax pitch were Gerald Butts, who was principal secretary to the prime minister from 2015 to 2019 and Trudeau’s closest personal advisor, and Catherine McKenna, who was the minister of environment and climate change during the same period.<br />
<br />
Butts and McKenna were in the trenches and they have the scars to show for it. Both of them noticed the piece I published on Volts in January on carbon tax refunds — and they objected to the conclusion that dividends did not make the carbon tax more popular in Canada.<br />
<br />
So I had them on the pod! We talked about how the carbon tax was conceived, what enabled it to secure majority support (yes, they say, refunds were important), and where the politics of carbon pricing stand as we move into the 2020s. Not only were my spirits lifted — it’s nice to know there’s a sane country out there somewhere — I learned an enormous amount. I think you will too.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-unveils-details-of-its-climate-plan Alberta launches $3-billion climate change strategy with carbon tax] Calgary Herald; 22 Nov 2015<br />
{{Quote|Albertans will pay $3 billion more annually in a new economywide tax on carbon, and will likely have to shell out more for electricity as a result of an accelerated retirement of coal-fired power plants under the NDP government’s new climate-change strategy released Sunday. Premier Rachel Notley said she thinks Alberta families will willingly pay the tax and higher price for power, but some of the tax revenue will be returned to people and businesses that need help. “Low- and middle-income families will get support to help them make ends meet,” she said following the announcement of the long-awaited strategy at the Telus World of Science in Edmonton. “I think that ultimately we’ll be able to manage this in a way that encourages reduced use of high-emission activities, while at the same time ensuring we don’t put an unnecessary burden on families.” The plan predicts the new tax of $20 per tonne in 2017 and $30 per tonne in 2018 will cost the average household $320 annually in 2017 and $470 in 2018. But 60 per cent of Albertans will receive rebates for some or all of the increased cost of home heating, electricity and gasoline.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/03/news/breaking-feds-announce-pan-canadian-carbon-price-plan-2018 McKenna touts "amazing" progress on climate after three ministers leave meeting] Elizabeth McSheffrey, Mike De Souza; National Observer; 3 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|Canadian Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna praised her provincial colleagues for making "amazing" progress on discussions to tackle global warming on Monday, after her government's proposal to make polluters pay drove a few of them out of the room. According to the new federal policy, all Canadian jurisdictions must adopt a carbon pricing scheme by 2018 with a minimum price of $10 per tonne. The price must rise to reach $50 per tonne by 2022.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-climate-change-1.3788825 Justin Trudeau gives provinces until 2018 to adopt carbon price plan] Kathleen Harris; CBC News; 3 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took provinces by surprise Monday by announcing they have until 2018 to adopt a carbon pricing scheme, or the federal government will step in and impose a price for them.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/04/canada-set-to-introduce-a-carbon-tax.html Canada set to introduce carbon tax] Anmar Frangoul; CNBC.com; 4 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|Trudeau said that the proposed price on carbon pollution would start at 10 Canadian dollars ($7.60) per tonne in 2018, rising by 10 Canadian dollars each year, and hitting 50 Canadian dollars per tonne by 2022.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/carbon-price-vs-regulations-the-better-choice-is-clear/article32243927/ Carbon price vs. regulations: The better choice is clear] DON DRUMMOND, NANCY OLEWILER, CHRISTOPHER RAGAN; Globe and Mail; 5 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
To begin, we agree that climate change is a serious issue and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a sensible objective of public policy.<br />
<br />
Second, we agree that the lowest-cost approach for reducing emissions is with carbon pricing. Either economy-wide carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems reduce GHG emissions at a lower overall economic cost than “command-and-control” government regulations.<br />
<br />
Third, we agree that carbon prices cannot do it all; there is a case for “complementary” regulations. The emissions from some economic sectors are difficult to incorporate into a carbon price, and some existing market features weaken the effect of carbon pricing.<br />
<br />
On a related point, we also agree that some regulations are bad and should not be used: In particular, inflexible regulations that dictate specific technologies or methods for reducing emissions constrain private choice and increase costs.<br />
<br />
Finally, we agree that in order to drive the kinds of emissions cuts deemed necessary over the next half-century, carbon prices will need to rise significantly, likely to $100 a tonne and even higher.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://blogs.ubc.ca/maribo/2016/10/06/five-myths-about-canadas-carbon-pricing-plan/ Five myths about Canada’s carbon pricing plan] Simon Donner; Maribo blog; 6 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|Here are some of the common myths – and the reality}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.pembina.org/reports/lessons-bc-carbon-tax-112014.pdf The B.C. carbon tax - Backgrounder] Pembina Institute; Nov 2014?<br />
{{Quote|<br />
British Columbia’s carbon tax has been in place for six years and all available evidence indicates it has been successful. Per capita fossil fuel combustion is down and the economy has performed well relative to the rest of Canada. The policy has survived two provincial elections and a change in Premier. This backgrounder explores B.C.’s experience with the carbon tax. <br />
<br />
B.C.’s carbon tax was implemented with a five-year schedule of rate increases starting at $10 per tonne in 2008, rising by $5 per tonne per year to $30 per tonne in 2012.1 The tax applies to almost all of the fossil fuels burned in the province (e.g., coal, gasoline, natural gas), amounting to over 70 per cent of the province’s carbon pollution. In 2013, the government decided to keep the rate and coverage stable for five years — or until other jurisdictions introduce similar carbon pricing approaches. For the 2013–14 fiscal year, the carbon tax is forecasted to raise $1.2 billion — slightly less than three per cent of total provincial revenue. The Carbon Tax Act requires that money raised by the carbon tax be used to reduce other provincial taxes (referred to as ‘revenue neutrality’). In 2013–14, the largest reduction measures were cutting corporate income taxes ($440 million) and personal income taxes ($237 million) and providing low-income tax credits ($194 million).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== EU ==<br />
[https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/01/how-carbon-prices-are-taking-over-the-world How carbon prices are taking over the world] The Economist; 1 October 2023<br />
{{q|<br />
If global warming is to be limited, the world must forget about fossil fuels as fast as possible—that much almost everyone agrees upon. How to do so is the complicated part. Economists have long favoured putting a price on carbon, a mechanism that Europe introduced in 2005. Doing so allows the market to identify the cheapest unit of greenhouse gas to cut, and thus society to fight climate change at the lowest possible cost. Others, including many American politicians, worry that such schemes will provoke a backlash by raising consumer costs. Under President Joe Biden, America is instead doling out hundreds of billions of dollars to nurture green supply chains.<br />
Yet, remarkably, the rest of the world is now beginning to look more European—with carbon prices spreading in countries both rich and poor. Take Indonesia, the world’s ninth-biggest polluter. Although it releases 620m tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent a year, with almost half its soaring energy consumption coming from coal, the country has green ambitions. On September 26th, at the launch of its first carbon market, Joko Widodo, the president, talked up its prospects as a hub for the carbon trade, and local banks duly snapped up credits from a geothermal-energy firm. The country also introduced a local emissions-trading scheme in February, which requires large coal-fired plants to buy permits for emissions above a threshold.<br />
<br />
In short, even in countries better known as polluters than as green leaders, things are shifting. By the start of 2023, 23% of the world’s emissions were covered by a carbon price, according to the World Bank, up from just 5% in 2010 (see chart). The spread will only accelerate over the coming years as more countries come around to the advantages of carbon pricing, and existing schemes expand their reach. On October 1st the eu launched a groundbreaking policy under a dreary name. The “carbon border adjustment mechanism” (cbam) will, by 2026, start to levy a carbon price on all the bloc’s imports, meaning that European companies will have a strong incentive to push suppliers around the world to go green.<br />
<br />
The spread of carbon prices is happening in three ways. First, governments are creating new markets and levies. Indonesia is one example. If all goes to plan, its market will eventually be combined with a carbon tax. In April Japan launched a voluntary national market for carbon offsets, which will work alongside an existing regional cap-and-trade policy in place in Tokyo. Participants, accounting for 40% or so of the country’s pollution, will be required to disclose and set emissions targets. Over time the scheme will become stricter, with auctions of carbon allowances for the energy industry due to begin in 2033. Meanwhile, Vietnam is working on an emissions-trading scheme to be established in 2028, in which firms with emissions above a threshold will need to offset them by buying credits.<br />
<br />
Second, countries with more established markets are beefing up their policies. On September 24th China’s National Climate Strategy Centre announced that its emissions-trading scheme, which is the world’s largest, will move from only focusing on the carbon intensity of coal power plants, to focusing on both their intensity and total emissions. The scheme will be linked with a dormant carbon-credit market, allowing plants to meet their obligations by purchasing credits for renewable power, planting forests or restoring mangroves. Australia, which scrapped its original carbon price in 2014, has reformed a previously toothless scheme known as the “safeguard mechanism”. Since July large industrial facilities that account for 28% of the country’s emissions have had to reduce emissions by 4.9% a year against a baseline. Those that fail must buy carbon offsets, which trade at a price of around $20 a tonne.<br />
<br />
The final way in which carbon markets are spreading is through cross-border schemes. The eu’s programme is by far the most advanced. In cbam’s pilot phase importers of aluminium, cement, electricity, fertiliser, hydrogen, iron and steel will need to report “embodied” emissions (those generated through production and transport). Then, from 2026, importers will have to pay a levy equivalent to the difference between the carbon cost of these embodied emissions in the eu’s scheme and any carbon price paid by the exporter in their domestic market. Free permits for sectors will also be phased out, and the housing and transport industries will be brought into the market.<br />
<br />
Across the world, activists criticise the ability of firms to use offsets to indulge in what they term “greenwashing”, where companies falsely present themselves as environmentally friendly. Some schemes also struggle to prove they have led to emissions reductions. In 2022 a team of academics, led by Andrew Macintosh of Australian National University, argued that reforestation used as carbon credits in Australia’s scheme either did not happen or would have happened irrespective of payments for offsets. An independent review has since recommended changes to how the scheme works.<br />
<br />
Yet even carbon-pricing programmes that are limited will still help change behaviour, for the simple reason that they encourage the monitoring of emissions. After its launch two years ago, China’s emissions-trading scheme was dogged by fraud, with consultants alleged to have helped firms produce fake coal samples. A crackdown was announced by officials earlier this year, who are now satisfied with the quality of data. Despite the absence of a carbon price, American firms also face incentives to monitor emissions. President Biden has proposed a rule that all businesses selling to the federal government must disclose their emissions and have plans to reduce them. Many large firms have set voluntary net-zero targets as part of their marketing efforts. Apple, the world’s largest, has pledged to make its supply chain entirely carbon neutral by 2030.<br />
And manufacturers around the world now face a still greater incentive to accurately track their carbon footprints: cbam. The eu’s ultimate goal is to tackle “carbon leakage”. Before cbam’s introduction, Europe’s carbon price meant that domestic industries faced an extra cost compared with those in countries with less ambitious decarbonisation plans. This gave importers an incentive to source material from abroad, even if these inputs were dirtier. To compensate for this, the eu handed out permits to industrial producers. These will now be phased out as cbam is phased in.<br />
<br />
During the pilot phase, CBAM simply presents an extra hurdle (what economists call a “non-tariff barrier”) for exporters to the bloc. To comply, European firms must report the embodied emissions of their imports. If such data do not exist, importers must use reference values provided by the eu. In order to nudge foreign companies to change their behaviour and prove that their emissions are lower, these are based on the emissions of the dirtiest firms in the bloc. From 2026 importers will have to pay the difference between the amount embodied emissions would be charged under the eu’s emissions-trading scheme and whatever carbon price the products pay at home.<br />
Carbon border tariffs may themselves multiply over the coming years. In Australia the government recently announced a review into the country’s “carbon leakage”, which will examine such an option. In 2021 America and the eu paused a trade dispute, begun by President Donald Trump, by starting negotiations over a “Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminium”. America wants the two trading partners to establish a common external tariff on more polluting steel producers. Since America does not have a domestic carbon price, such a policy would flout the rules of the World Trade Organisation. But if the eu and America do not come to an agreement, the Trump-era tariffs and the eu’s retaliatory measures will be reinstated.<br />
<br />
There is a domino effect to carbon pricing. Once an industry is subject to a carbon price its businesses will naturally want their competitors to face the same rules. Therefore owners of coal power plants will lobby to ensure that gas power plants operate on a level playing-field. Governments in exporting countries also have an incentive to ensure that their domestic firms pay a carbon price at home rather than a tariff abroad. If Asia’s factories are pressed to reduce their emissions anyway by schemes such as cbam, then its governments are leaving money on the table by not levying a carbon price of their own.<br />
<br />
The question is whether the dominoes will fall fast enough. Almost no emissions-trading schemes are aimed at emissions from residential property or cars, for instance, where consumers would really feel the pain. In choosing to introduce carbon-pricing schemes, and then to make them broader and more muscular, policymakers have most economists firmly on their side—and are proceeding much faster than is commonly realised. But future policymakers will need to make such policies even more intrusive if the effects of climate change are to be minimised. For that to happen, they will have to win over voters, too.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== US ==<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/10/epas-war-with-california-proves-america-needs-a-carbon-tax EPA’s war with California proves America needs a carbon tax] Dana Nuccitelli; The Guardian; 10 Apr 2018<br />
{{Quote|Artificially low fuel prices are the root of the problem}}<br />
<br />
=== California ===<br />
[http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2016/09/20/a-key-moment-for-california-climate-policy/ A Key Moment for California Climate Policy] Robert Stavins; blog; 20 Sep 2016<br />
{{Quote|With China now the largest emitter in the world, and India and other large developing countries not very far behind, California policies that achieve emission reductions through excessively costly means will fail to encourage other countries to follow, or even recognize, California’s leadership. On the other hand, by increasing reliance on its progressive market-based system, California can succeed at home and be influential around the world.}}<br />
<br />
=== Washington State ===<br />
<br />
[http://scientistsfor732.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/open-letter-on-i-732-from-climate.html Open Letter on I-732 from Climate Scientists] Scientists for I732; 9 Oct 2016<br />
<br />
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/10/environmentalists_are_against_i_732_washington_s_carbon_tax.html Environmentalists’ Disdain for Washington’s Carbon Tax] Shi-Ling Hsu; [[Slate]]; 20 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|The first such law in the nation is being hampered by idealists. Instead, they should band together and make history.}}<br />
<br />
=== Appeal to Conservatives ===<br />
<br />
There is some support, and attempts to gather support, from conservatives for carbon pricing/taxation, sometimes using the word "fee" rather than "tax".<br />
<br />
----<br />
[http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/10/03/why-climate-skeptics-should-support-a-carbon-tax/ Why Climate Skeptics Should Support a Carbon Tax] Greg Ip; Wall St Journal; 3 Oct 2016 [paywalled]<br />
{{Quote|four reasons a carbon tax is a good idea even if you're unconvinced by the scientific consensus on climate change}}<br />
==== Jerry Taylor, Niskanen Centre ====<br />
<br />
[http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8588273/the-arguments-that-convinced-this-libertarian-to-support-a-carbon-tax The arguments that convinced a libertarian to support aggressive action on climate]<br />
{{Quote|To the casual observer, the American right can appear an undifferentiated wall of denial and obstructionism on climate change, but behind the scenes there are signs of movement. A growing number of conservative leaders and intellectuals have come to terms with climate science and begun casting about for solutions. Led mainly by libertarians and libertarian-leaning economists, they've begun to coalesce behind a carbon tax, which they consider the most market-friendly of the available alternatives.}}<br />
<br />
[http://niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-Conservative-Case-for-a-Carbon-Tax1.pdf The Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax] Jerry Taylor; Niskanen Center; 23 Mar 2015<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Costly and economically inefficient command-and-control greenhouse gas regulations are firmly entrenched in law, and there is no plausible scenario in which they can be removed by conservative political force. Even were that not the case, the risks imposed by climate change are real, and a policy of ignoring those risks and hoping for the best is inconsistent with risk management practices conservatives embrace in other, non-climate contexts. Conservatives should embrace a carbon tax (a much less costly means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions) in return for elimination of EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions, abolition of green energy subsidies and regulatory mandates, and offsetting tax cuts to provide for revenue neutrality.<br />
<br />
Arguments that unilateral action by the United States produces little climate benefit, that a carbon tax will expand the size of government, that a carbon tax is a regressive, that adaptation and geo-engineering is preferable to emissions constraint, that economists cannot confidently design a carbon tax that does more good than harm, that the legislative process cannot deliver a carbon tax worth embracing, and that promoting a carbon tax puts conservatives on a slippery political slope are explored and found wanting.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Citizens' Climate Lobby ====<br />
<br />
[https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/ The Basics of Carbon Fee and Dividend] Citizens' Climate Lobby<br />
{{Quote|How Carbon Fee and Dividend Works<br />
<br />
1. Place a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels<br />
<br />
To account for the cost of burning fossil fuels, we propose an initial fee of $15/ton on the CO2 equivalent emissions of fossil fuels, escalating $10/ton/year, imposed upstream at the mine, well or port of entry.<br />
<br />
Accounting for the true cost of fossil fuel emissions not only creates a level-playing field for all sources of energy, but also informs consumers of the true cost comparison of various fuels when making purchase decisions.<br />
<br />
2. Give 100% of the fees minus administrative costs back to households each month.<br />
<br />
100% of the net fees from the carbon fee are held in a Carbon Fees Trust fund and returned directly to households as a monthly dividend.<br />
<br />
About two-thirds of households will break even or receive more than they would pay in higher prices. This feature will inject billions into the economy, protect family budgets, free households to make independent choices about their energy usage, spur innovation and build aggregate demand for low-carbon products at the consumer level.<br />
<br />
3. Use a border adjustment to stop business relocation.<br />
<br />
Import fees on products imported from countries without a carbon fee, along with rebates to US industries exporting to those countries, will discourage businesses from relocating where they can emit more CO2 and motivate other countries to adopt similar carbon pricing policies. Building upon existing tax and trade systems will avoid complex new institutional arrangements.<br />
<br />
Firms seeking to escape higher energy costs will be discouraged from relocating to non-compliant nations (“leakage”), as their products will be subject to import fees.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oyguP4nLv0 Citizens' Climate Lobby Introductory Video] TouTube<br />
<br />
==== Baker etc / Climate Leadership Council ====<br />
[https://www.clcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/TheConservativeCaseforCarbonDividends.pdf THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR CARBON DIVIDENDS] James A. Baker III, Martin Feldstein, Ted Halstead, N. Gregory Mankiw, Henry M. Paulson Jr., George P. Shultz, Thomas Stephenson, Rob Walton; Climate Leadership Council; Feb 2017<br />
{{Quote|How a new climate strategy can strengthen our economy, reduce regulation, help working-class Americans, shrink government & promote national security<br />
<br />
Mounting evidence of climate change is growing too strong to ignore. While the extent to which climate change is due to man-made causes can be questioned, the risks associated with future warming are too big and should be hedged. At least we need an insurance policy. For too long, many Republicans have looked the other way, forfeiting the policy initiative to those who favor growth-inhibiting command-and-control regulations, and fostering a needless climate divide between the GOP and the scientific, business, military, religious, civic and international mainstream. <br />
<br />
Now that the Republican Party controls the White House and Congress, it has the opportunity and responsibility to promote a climate plan that showcases the full power of enduring conservative convictions. Any climate solution should be based on sound economic analysis and embody the principles of free markets and limited government. As this paper argues, such a plan could strengthen our economy, benefit working-class Americans, reduce regulations, protect our natural heritage and consolidate a new era of Republican leadership. These benefits accrue regardless of one’s views on climate science.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win/ A climate solution where all sides can win] Ted Halstead; TED; 2017<br />
: ''Talk on Climate Leadership Council proposals, with footnotes''<br />
<br />
[http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2017/20170209_PressConference.pdf Fee and Dividend] James Hansen; ; 8 February 2017<br />
: Hansen's press release on the above:<br />
{{Quote|A group of conservative thought leaders1 is bringing forth the pure Fee & Dividend plan. As their report states, fee & dividend is a climate plan that “can strengthen our economy, reduce regulation, help working-class Americans, shrink government and promote national security.”}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/republicans-offer-to-tax-carbon-emissions/ Republicans Offer to Tax Carbon Emissions] Dave Levitan; Scientific American; 8 Feb 2017<br />
{{Quote|A group of prominent Republicans released a “conservative” plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions today, arguing that replacing Obama-era policies with a carbon-tax-and-dividend system would be a politically feasible way to fight off the worst effects of climate change. The plan, released by the Climate Leadership Council in a report titled “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends,” would tax carbon beginning at $40 per ton. The price would then rise each year to help push emissions down. The revenues generated—about $194 billion in the first year, rising up past $250 billion within a decade—would then be redistributed by the Social Security Administration in the form of quarterly checks to every U.S. household. Proponents hope that idea would swing public support toward aggressive climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-proposed-us-carbon-tax-a-recipe-for-disaster/ The proposed US carbon tax – a recipe for disaster] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 15 Feb 2017<br />
{{Quote|A group of Republican elder statesmen have recommended that the US adopt a $40/ton carbon tax as the “most efficient and effective way of reducing CO2 emissions”. This post reviews the potential economic impacts of such a tax on the US energy sector. It concludes that the impacts on the oil and natural gas sectors would be comparatively minor but that the impacts on the coal sector would be severe. Electric utilities with a high percentage of coal in their generation mix could well be driven into bankruptcy.}}<br />
<br />
== Footnotes and references ==<br />
<references /></div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_pricing&diff=5533Carbon pricing2023-10-01T22:13:41Z<p>Sisussman: /* US */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:2]]<br />
[[Category:Economics]]<br />
[[Category:Carbon pricing]]<br />
<br />
Imposing a price on carbon is intended to raise the cost of activities which create {{CO2}} emissions and thus encourage alternative activities with lower emissions. For example if generating electricity from unabated combustion of fossil fuels becomes more expensive then using fossil fuels with [[CCS | Carbon Capture and Storage]] may become financially more competitive and lead to industry voluntarily investing in the equipment to remove {{CO2}} from existing power stations, and other {{CO2}}-emitting processes such as cement, steel and glass production.<br />
<br />
Carbon pricing is an alternative mechanism to subsidising low-carbon technologies or enacting laws banning {{CO2}} emissions, or banning the use of certain technologies and/or mandating others. [[Economics | Economists]] generally consider that carbon pricing works better than subsidies or mandates as the main way of achieving changes in emissions, with the other methods being more appropriate for making smaller adjustments to the market e.g. to encourage development of newer technologies.<ref><br />
See e.g. "[https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/in-defense-of-picking-winners/ In Defense of Picking Winners]"<br />
by Severin Borenstein<br />
on the Energy Institute at Haas blog<br />
on 3 Mar 2014<br />
</ref><br />
Heavy reliance on mandates or subsidies rather than carbon pricing can have the perverse effect of increasing the cost of solutions whilst reducing the economic incentive to develop cheaper options.<ref><br />
In a post "[https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/time-to-unleash-the-carbon-market/ Time to Unleash the Carbon Market?]"<br />
on the Energy Institute at HAAS blog on 20 June 2016,<br />
Meredith Fowlie shows how mandating particular solutions results in inappropriately low carbon prices and expensive overall solutions.<br />
<br><br><br />
In a blog post "[http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2016/09/20/a-key-moment-for-california-climate-policy/ A Key Moment for California Climate Policy]" on 20 Sep 2016, Robert Stavins observes:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
One example of this is the attempt to employ aggressive sector-based targets through technology-driven policies, such as the Low Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS). In the presence of a binding cap-and-trade regime, the LCFS has the perverse effect of relocating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to other sectors but not reducing net emissions, while driving up statewide abatement costs, and suppressing allowance prices in the cap-and-trade market, thereby reducing incentives for technological change. That is bad news all around. These perverse outcomes render such policies of little interest or value to other regions of the world.<br />
<br />
The magnitude of the economic distortion is illustrated by the fact that allowances in the California cap-and-trade market have recently been trading in the range of $12 to $13 per ton of CO2, while LCFS credits have traded this summer for about $80 per ton of CO2.<br />
}}<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
The IPCC regards carbon pricing as a necessary part of AGW mitigation efforts.<ref><br />
According the the IPCC AR5 sysnthesis report on [http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_adaptation.php Mitigation and Adaptation] ''(section 4.4)'': {{quote|<br />
In principle, mechanisms that set a carbon price, including cap and trade systems and carbon taxes, can achieve mitigation in a cost-effective way, but have been implemented with diverse effects due in part to national circumstances as well as policy design. The short-run environmental effects of cap and trade systems have been limited as a result of loose caps or caps that have not proved to be constraining (limited evidence, medium agreement). In some countries, tax-based policies specifically aimed at reducing GHG emissions — alongside technology and other policies — have helped to weaken the link between GHG emissions and gross domestic product (GDP) (high confidence). In addition, in a large group of countries, fuel taxes (although not necessarily designed for the purpose of mitigation) have had effects that are akin to sectoral carbon taxes (robust evidence, medium agreement). Revenues from carbon taxes or auctioned emission allowances are used in some countries to reduce other taxes and/or to provide transfers to low‐income groups. This illustrates the general principle that mitigation policies that raise government revenue generally have lower social costs than approaches which do not.}}<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
In the largest public statement of economists in history, 3589 U.S. Economists, 4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve, 28 Nobel Laureate Economists, and 15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers call for a carbon tax and dividend scheme.<ref><br />
[https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS] Climate Leadership Council; 17 Jan 2019</ref><br />
{{Quote|<br />
Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.<br />
<br />
I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.<br />
<br />
II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.<br />
<br />
III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long- term investment in clean-energy alternatives.<br />
<br />
IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.<br />
<br />
V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Morally, carbon pricing can be regarded as the just approach, making the polluter pay for creating pollution whose costs would otherwise fall on society as whole. In [[economics]] terms the costs of pollution which are not paid for by the polluter are regarded as external costs (or just ''externalities'') and the burden of these costs falling on society as a whole rather than the polluter are seen as a ''market failure''. Pricing internalises these costs and corrects for the failure of the market. <br />
<br />
The fossil fuel industries generally back carbon pricing<ref><br />
'''Exxon, BP and Shell back carbon tax proposal to curb emissions'''<br />
by Oliver Milman<br />
in The Guardian<br />
on 20 Jun 2017<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/20/exxon-bp-shell-oil-climate-change [article]]<br />
{{Quote| Oil giants ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Total are among a group of large corporations supporting a plan to tax carbon dioxide emissions in order to address climate change. The companies have revealed their support for the Climate Leadership Council, a group of senior Republican figures that in February proposed a $40 fee on each ton of CO2 emitted as part of a “free-market, limited government” response to climate change. The fossil fuel companies announced their backing for the plan alongside other major firms including Unilever, PepsiCo, General Motors and Johnson & Johnson. In a full-page newspaper ad on Tuesday, the companies called for a “consensus climate solution that bridges partisan divides, strengthens our economy and protects our shared environment”. Exxon and the others were listed as founding members of the plan, alongside the green groups Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy. }}<br />
</ref><br />
whether through principle, or as the lesser or what they see as worse alternatives.<ref><br />
'''Exxon is lobbying for a carbon tax. There is, obviously, a catch.'''<br />
by Umair Irfan<br />
in Vox<br />
on 18 Oct 2018<br />
[https://www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17983866/climate-change-exxon-carbon-tax-lawsuit [article]]<br />
{{quote|The oil giant wants immunity from lawsuits that would make it pay for the damages of climate change.}}<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
Pricing can also reward external benefits such as carbon sequestration through [[rewilding]], [[reforestation]] and other [[CDR | Carbon Dioxide Reduction]] schemes. This could be achieved either in a purely economic scheme of carbon taxation, with CDR attracting negative rates of tax, or by using revenues from carbon pricing to fund selected schemes, as in Colombia and Costa Rica.<ref><br />
See "[https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/02/13/carbon-taxes-key-stop-deforestation/ Carbon taxes are key to stop deforestation]"<br />
in Climate Home News<br />
on 13 Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|Economists and scientists agree that carbon taxes help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating an incentive for people to use less fossil fuels. But that’s not all they can do, as we and our co-authors – ministers from both countries – note in an essay published in the journal Nature.<br />
<br />
Carbon taxes are also effective at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions created by the destruction of tropical rainforests, making them even more critical to addressing the climate crisis.<br />
<br />
If tropical deforestation were a country, it would be the world’s largest emitter after China and the United States. Moreover, tropical rainforests remove carbon from the atmosphere: The Amazon, for example absorbs five percent of global carbon emissions every year.<br />
<br />
This means that when we cut down our rainforests, we also eliminate one of our best tools for addressing the climate crisis.<br />
<br />
But in both Colombia and Costa Rica, deforestation rates are down, while revenues to fund forest restoration efforts are up.<br />
<br />
The programmes have different structures but similar impacts. Since 1997, Costa Rica’s carbon tax has helped to protect and restore lands across a quarter of the country. It generates $26.5 million in revenue every year, which the government then pays out to farmers and landowners that commit to rainforest protection or restoration on their property.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Colombia’s programme has generated more than $250 million in revenue over the past three years. More than a quarter of that revenue goes toward environmental causes such as reducing deforestation and monitoring protected areas.<br />
<br />
These programmes also offer a counterpoint to the argument that carbon taxes disproportionately impact people with lower incomes.<br />
<br />
In Costa Rica, the government helps lower-income residents to complete their applications, and it prioritises lower-income regions when distributing payments. As a result, two out of every five people who receive a payment from the programme live below the poverty line.<br />
<br />
We wanted to see what would happen if other countries adopted similar policies, so we analysed their potential impact on 12 countries with tropical rainforests across Africa, Asia and South America.<br />
<br />
Our model found that if all 12 countries adopted a policy like Colombia’s, these countries would collectively generate $1.8 billion every year. If they decided to adopt an even more ambitious proposal in the face of increasing global emissions, their revenue would soar to nearly $13 billion — equivalent to the GDP of Nicaragua.<br />
<br />
Either scenario would have a profound impact on protection and restoration efforts. Countries facing the biggest threats from deforestation, like Indonesia, would have robust funding streams to help restore devastated landscapes.<br />
<br />
Other countries, like Mexico and Malaysia, would be able to better monitor their protected areas. And every country would reduce the public’s reliance on fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
Our research shows that a carbon tax is one of the most effective investments a country can make, and a particularly easy initiative for countries with existing carbon offset programs like Peru and Ecuador.<br />
<br />
It offers a powerful tool for governments to fight deforestation, reduce emissions and support rural communities. Governments should consider it, and international institutions should encourage it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br>and<br />
"[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00324-w Adopt a carbon tax to protect tropical forests]"<br />
by Edward B. Barbier, Ricardo Lozano, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez & Sebastian Troëng<br />
in Nature<br />
on 12 Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
'''Case studies'''<br />
<br />
Colombia and Costa Rica have blazed a trail. Since 1997, Costa Rica has collected a 3.5% tax on fossil fuels. That now generates $26.5 million per year7 (see go.nature.com/3jdpmtk; in Spanish). The tax was negotiated in Costa Rica’s legislative assembly and supported by research from the non-governmental Tropical Science Center in San José, which examined the benefits of forests to the country’s economy. Implementation faced little opposition because the tax was incorporated with other fiscal reforms. Surveys of fossil-fuel users indicated that they did not object if revenues were directed to forest conservation.<br />
<br />
To invest the money raised, Costa Rica created its National Forest Fund (FONAFIFO). For example, from 1997 to 2018, the fund paid out to landowners across 23.5% of the country — an area of 1.2 million hectares. They spent the money on projects to protect 1 million hectares of mature forest and 71,000 hectares under reforestation. The fund supports conservation of mature forests, reforestation using native or exotic species, and agroforestry systems that use a mix of trees and crops or grasslands. It has disbursed $500 million to roughly 18,000 people, including those living across 162,000 hectares of Indigenous lands, such as the Cabécar and Bribri territories. Transparency and accountability of the fund’s operations are important to its success and continued popularity, so strategic and operational plans, budgets, financial statements and other details are available online (see [https://www.fonafifo.go.cr www.fonafifo.go.cr]).<br />
<br />
In the 1980s, Costa Rica had the highest deforestation rates in the world. Forest cover more than doubled between 1986 and 2013, rising to 53%8. Although estimates remain uncertain, we think that the fossil-fuel tax, along with a decline in the profitability of livestock and the expansion of protected areas and ecotourism, contributed to this. The programme funded by the fuel tax has been especially effective away from protected areas and their buffer zones.<br />
<br />
Colombia rolled out a carbon tax in 2016 as part of sweeping fiscal reforms. These garnered broad political support because of the need to raise money for the country’s peace process. The carbon tax was developed by the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, and is collected from companies producing or importing fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
Colombia’s tax of $5 per tonne of emitted carbon yielded revenues of $148 million in 2017 and $91 million in 2018 (see [https://go.nature.com/3b8ufkj go.nature.com/3b8ufkj]; in Spanish). These go to the Colombian Peace Fund (Fondo Colombia en Paz), from which 25% is used to manage coastal erosion, reduce and monitor deforestation, conserve water sources, protect strategic ecosystems and combat climate change. A further 5% is used to strengthen Colombia’s National System of Protected Areas. The revenue will be used for conservation projects in the following prioritized areas: flood-plain forests, tropical montane cloud forests, tropical humid forests, tropical savannahs and Andean forests. These projects are in the development phase and are waiting to access the fund. There is also a project to enhance the Colombian Environmental Information System (SIAC), a web-based platform that provides official information on the state of the country’s natural resources and which is under development (see [https://go.nature.com/2hthzqw go.nature.com/2hthzqw]; in Spanish).<br />
<br />
A mechanism called carbon neutrality allows companies to reduce their tax burdens by buying certified carbon credits from conservation and restoration projects in Colombia that adhere to internationally recognized standards. For example, a company might buy a credit in a region that promotes social initiatives with communities that are involved in managing these projects. This is the case for communities in the Chocó departmental region of northwestern Colombia, such as those living near towns including Acandí, El Carmen del Darién and Baudó.<br />
}}<br />
</ref><br />
----<br />
{{#evt:<br />
service=youtube<br />
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdUA0KiJAgA<br />
|alignment=right<br />
|container=frame<br />
|description='''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdUA0KiJAgA "How can we stop causing climate change?" - Dieter Helm]'''<br />
}}<br />
In this interview with Syed Kamall of the Institute of Economic Affairs (a UK free-market think tank), Professor Dieter Helm discusses the costs and economic mechanisms by which the UK could meet its 2050 target of net zero emissions. Dieter Helm is Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Economics at New College, Oxford, and has provided extensive advice to UK and European governments, including The Cost of Energy Review for the UK government in October 2017 and for the European Commission in preparing the Energy Roadmap 2030.<br />
{{clear}}<br />
----<br />
== Pricing at source v. destination ==<br />
<br />
Pricing can be done by either adding a price, e.g. through taxation, at source on carbon-emitting fuels, or by charging for carbon emissions. There are relatively few large sources of carbon-emitting fuels &ndash; a few thousand coal, oil and gas companies worldwide &ndash; but there are billions of emitters, including not only large power stations and industries but all internal combustion engines in ships, planes, cars and motorbikes, so it is practically impossible to apply pricing to all emissions. The European Emissions Trading Scheme covers only large emitters, responsible for less than half the EU's {{CO2}} emissions.<ref><br />
'''What is the EU emission trading scheme?'''<br />
by the European Environment Agency<br />
[https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/what-is-the-eu-emission-trading-scheme [website]]<br />
</ref><br />
However an emissions pricing scheme such as the EU's ETS can also cover emissions of other greenhouse gases and other pollutants under the same scheme.<br />
<br />
Pricing carbon-based fuels at source affects all users of the fuels, so is more likely to encourage individuals to reduce usage or switch to lower-carbon alternatives such as more fuel-efficient or electric vehicles. However by increasing the cost of fuels it does also have a social cost, hitting poorer people, for whom fuel costs tend to be a larger proportion of their budget, hardest. Some advocates of carbon pricing propose compensating those hardest hit, either by direct payments or by corresponding reduction in other taxes which also hit the poorest hardest, such as Value Added taxes. Such schems are described as ''revenue neutral'' because the government should end up with neither more nor less income from the measure.<br />
In France when a carbon tax was introduced without compensating measures the effect on particularly rural poor people who relied disproportionately on transport resulted in civil unrest which was manifested in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement gilets jaunes] movement.<br />
<br />
Economist Tim Harford describes the benefit of a carbon taxation (pricing at source) system by supposing that a conscientious consumer wishes to minimise their carbon footprint. They would have to gather data on every part of the production chain for everything they consider buying in order to make informed choices. However carbon pricing, by reflecting the {{CO2}} emissions embedded in goods and services in their prices, achieves much the same effect without any effort, or indeed desire, on the part of consumers to do the right thing.<ref><br />
'''Adapt: why success always starts with failure'''<br />
(ISBN-13: 978-0349121512) (ISBN-10: 0349121516)<br />
by Tim Harford<br />
See book description on Harford's website: [http://timharford.com/books/adapt/ [link]]<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
[http://pathsoflight.us/musing/2015/02/why-add-a-cost-to-ghg-instead-of-subsidizing-renewables/ Why add a cost to GHG instead of subsidizing renewables?] A Musing Environment; Feb 2015<br />
{{Quote|Do [] subsidies really help, or are there better ways to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? At the bottom, I partially address solar subsidies. This post focuses on why economists generally prefer correct pricing to subsidies.}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20161114150630/http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/statement-on-paris-climate-agreement-entering-into-force Statement on Paris climate agreement entering into force] ExxonMobil; 14 Nov 2016 ''(via Internet Archive Wayback Machine)''<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Today marks the entering into force of the Paris climate agreement. The agreement is an important step forward by world governments in addressing the serious risks of climate change.<br />
<br />
ExxonMobil supports the work of the Paris signatories, acknowledges the ambitious goals of this agreement and believes the company has a constructive role to play in developing solutions.<br />
<br />
We have been working for many years to reduce emissions in our operations and provide products that help consumers reduce their emissions.<br />
<br />
ExxonMobil continues to pursue technology solutions with leading scientists in industry, academia and nongovernmental institutions. We have invested nearly $7 billion since 2000 on lower-emissions initiatives such as energy efficiency, cogeneration, flare reduction, carbon capture and sequestration and research into next-generation biofuels.<br />
<br />
The Paris agreement and the initial Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) pledged by its signatories reflect the dual challenge of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring the world has adequate access to affordable and reliable supplies of energy.<br />
<br />
These INDCs also reflect understanding that all economic energy sources will be necessary to meet growing global demand, and that the evolution of the energy system toward lower atmospheric emissions will take time and commitment due to its enormous scale, capital intensity and complexity.<br />
<br />
As policymakers develop mechanisms to meet the Paris goals, ExxonMobil encourages them to focus on reducing emissions at the lowest cost to society, keeping in mind that access to affordable and reliable energy is critical to economic growth and improved standards of living worldwide.<br />
<br />
The best policy options to achieve that goal will be market-based, predictable, transparent and globally applicable to promote innovation and technology breakthroughs required to address climate change risks. ExxonMobil has for many years held the view that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the best option to fulfill these key principles.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Carbon Tax v Green Nudge ===<br />
'''Nudging out support for a carbon tax'''<br />
by David Hagmann, Emily H Ho, George Loewenstein<br />
in Nature Climate Change<br />
on 13 May 2019<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0474-0 [article]] <br />
{{quote| A carbon tax is widely accepted as the most effective policy for curbing carbon emissions but is controversial because it imposes costs on consumers. An alternative, ‘nudge,’ approach promises smaller benefits but with much lower costs. However, nudges aimed at reducing carbon emissions could have a pernicious indirect effect if they offer the promise of a ‘quick fix’ and thereby undermine support for policies of greater impact. Across six experiments, including one conducted with individuals involved in policymaking, we show that introducing a green energy default nudge diminishes support for a carbon tax. We propose that nudges decrease support for substantive policies by providing false hope that problems can be tackled without imposing considerable costs. Consistent with this account, we show that by minimizing the perceived economic cost of the tax and disclosing the small impact of the nudge, eliminates crowding-out without diminishing support for the nudge. }}<br />
<br />
== Canada ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-gerald-butts-and-catherine Gerald Butts and Catherine McKenna on Canada's carbon tax] David Roberts; Volts; 16 Feb 2022<br />
{{Q|In 2015, after nearly a decade of conservative rule, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party won a majority of seats in the Canadian parliament and control of the federal government. Part of Trudeau’s election platform was a carbon tax.<br />
<br />
The proposed tax had a few key features. First, it would only be imposed on provinces that did not have their own pricing system that met a few minimum requirements. And second, all the money collected from a province would be returned to that province as carbon dividends.<br />
<br />
After years of vigorous advocacy and negotiations, Trudeau’s liberals got the tax passed through parliament. It was implemented in early 2019, just before another federal election that became widely seen as a national referendum on the tax.<br />
<br />
Liberals won again. The carbon tax was affirmed. It’s going to stick — and rise to a whopping $170 a ton by 2030.<br />
<br />
This is a startling success story for climate policy that was largely overlooked in the US. We, uh, had some other stuff going on. But it’s worth taking a closer look at how Canada pulled it off.<br />
<br />
Two people at the core of the tax pitch were Gerald Butts, who was principal secretary to the prime minister from 2015 to 2019 and Trudeau’s closest personal advisor, and Catherine McKenna, who was the minister of environment and climate change during the same period.<br />
<br />
Butts and McKenna were in the trenches and they have the scars to show for it. Both of them noticed the piece I published on Volts in January on carbon tax refunds — and they objected to the conclusion that dividends did not make the carbon tax more popular in Canada.<br />
<br />
So I had them on the pod! We talked about how the carbon tax was conceived, what enabled it to secure majority support (yes, they say, refunds were important), and where the politics of carbon pricing stand as we move into the 2020s. Not only were my spirits lifted — it’s nice to know there’s a sane country out there somewhere — I learned an enormous amount. I think you will too.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-unveils-details-of-its-climate-plan Alberta launches $3-billion climate change strategy with carbon tax] Calgary Herald; 22 Nov 2015<br />
{{Quote|Albertans will pay $3 billion more annually in a new economywide tax on carbon, and will likely have to shell out more for electricity as a result of an accelerated retirement of coal-fired power plants under the NDP government’s new climate-change strategy released Sunday. Premier Rachel Notley said she thinks Alberta families will willingly pay the tax and higher price for power, but some of the tax revenue will be returned to people and businesses that need help. “Low- and middle-income families will get support to help them make ends meet,” she said following the announcement of the long-awaited strategy at the Telus World of Science in Edmonton. “I think that ultimately we’ll be able to manage this in a way that encourages reduced use of high-emission activities, while at the same time ensuring we don’t put an unnecessary burden on families.” The plan predicts the new tax of $20 per tonne in 2017 and $30 per tonne in 2018 will cost the average household $320 annually in 2017 and $470 in 2018. But 60 per cent of Albertans will receive rebates for some or all of the increased cost of home heating, electricity and gasoline.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/03/news/breaking-feds-announce-pan-canadian-carbon-price-plan-2018 McKenna touts "amazing" progress on climate after three ministers leave meeting] Elizabeth McSheffrey, Mike De Souza; National Observer; 3 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|Canadian Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna praised her provincial colleagues for making "amazing" progress on discussions to tackle global warming on Monday, after her government's proposal to make polluters pay drove a few of them out of the room. According to the new federal policy, all Canadian jurisdictions must adopt a carbon pricing scheme by 2018 with a minimum price of $10 per tonne. The price must rise to reach $50 per tonne by 2022.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-climate-change-1.3788825 Justin Trudeau gives provinces until 2018 to adopt carbon price plan] Kathleen Harris; CBC News; 3 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took provinces by surprise Monday by announcing they have until 2018 to adopt a carbon pricing scheme, or the federal government will step in and impose a price for them.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/04/canada-set-to-introduce-a-carbon-tax.html Canada set to introduce carbon tax] Anmar Frangoul; CNBC.com; 4 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|Trudeau said that the proposed price on carbon pollution would start at 10 Canadian dollars ($7.60) per tonne in 2018, rising by 10 Canadian dollars each year, and hitting 50 Canadian dollars per tonne by 2022.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/carbon-price-vs-regulations-the-better-choice-is-clear/article32243927/ Carbon price vs. regulations: The better choice is clear] DON DRUMMOND, NANCY OLEWILER, CHRISTOPHER RAGAN; Globe and Mail; 5 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
To begin, we agree that climate change is a serious issue and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a sensible objective of public policy.<br />
<br />
Second, we agree that the lowest-cost approach for reducing emissions is with carbon pricing. Either economy-wide carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems reduce GHG emissions at a lower overall economic cost than “command-and-control” government regulations.<br />
<br />
Third, we agree that carbon prices cannot do it all; there is a case for “complementary” regulations. The emissions from some economic sectors are difficult to incorporate into a carbon price, and some existing market features weaken the effect of carbon pricing.<br />
<br />
On a related point, we also agree that some regulations are bad and should not be used: In particular, inflexible regulations that dictate specific technologies or methods for reducing emissions constrain private choice and increase costs.<br />
<br />
Finally, we agree that in order to drive the kinds of emissions cuts deemed necessary over the next half-century, carbon prices will need to rise significantly, likely to $100 a tonne and even higher.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://blogs.ubc.ca/maribo/2016/10/06/five-myths-about-canadas-carbon-pricing-plan/ Five myths about Canada’s carbon pricing plan] Simon Donner; Maribo blog; 6 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|Here are some of the common myths – and the reality}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.pembina.org/reports/lessons-bc-carbon-tax-112014.pdf The B.C. carbon tax - Backgrounder] Pembina Institute; Nov 2014?<br />
{{Quote|<br />
British Columbia’s carbon tax has been in place for six years and all available evidence indicates it has been successful. Per capita fossil fuel combustion is down and the economy has performed well relative to the rest of Canada. The policy has survived two provincial elections and a change in Premier. This backgrounder explores B.C.’s experience with the carbon tax. <br />
<br />
B.C.’s carbon tax was implemented with a five-year schedule of rate increases starting at $10 per tonne in 2008, rising by $5 per tonne per year to $30 per tonne in 2012.1 The tax applies to almost all of the fossil fuels burned in the province (e.g., coal, gasoline, natural gas), amounting to over 70 per cent of the province’s carbon pollution. In 2013, the government decided to keep the rate and coverage stable for five years — or until other jurisdictions introduce similar carbon pricing approaches. For the 2013–14 fiscal year, the carbon tax is forecasted to raise $1.2 billion — slightly less than three per cent of total provincial revenue. The Carbon Tax Act requires that money raised by the carbon tax be used to reduce other provincial taxes (referred to as ‘revenue neutrality’). In 2013–14, the largest reduction measures were cutting corporate income taxes ($440 million) and personal income taxes ($237 million) and providing low-income tax credits ($194 million).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== EU ==<br />
[https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/01/how-carbon-prices-are-taking-over-the-world How carbon prices are taking over the world] The Economist; 1 October 2023<br />
{{q|<br />
If global warming is to be limited, the world must forget about fossil fuels as fast as possible—that much almost everyone agrees upon. How to do so is the complicated part. Economists have long favoured putting a price on carbon, a mechanism that Europe introduced in 2005. Doing so allows the market to identify the cheapest unit of greenhouse gas to cut, and thus society to fight climate change at the lowest possible cost. Others, including many American politicians, worry that such schemes will provoke a backlash by raising consumer costs. Under President Joe Biden, America is instead doling out hundreds of billions of dollars to nurture green supply chains.<br />
Yet, remarkably, the rest of the world is now beginning to look more European—with carbon prices spreading in countries both rich and poor. Take Indonesia, the world’s ninth-biggest polluter. Although it releases 620m tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent a year, with almost half its soaring energy consumption coming from coal, the country has green ambitions. On September 26th, at the launch of its first carbon market, Joko Widodo, the president, talked up its prospects as a hub for the carbon trade, and local banks duly snapped up credits from a geothermal-energy firm. The country also introduced a local emissions-trading scheme in February, which requires large coal-fired plants to buy permits for emissions above a threshold.<br />
<br />
In short, even in countries better known as polluters than as green leaders, things are shifting. By the start of 2023, 23% of the world’s emissions were covered by a carbon price, according to the World Bank, up from just 5% in 2010 (see chart). The spread will only accelerate over the coming years as more countries come around to the advantages of carbon pricing, and existing schemes expand their reach. On October 1st the eu launched a groundbreaking policy under a dreary name. The “carbon border adjustment mechanism” (cbam) will, by 2026, start to levy a carbon price on all the bloc’s imports, meaning that European companies will have a strong incentive to push suppliers around the world to go green.In short, even in countries better known as polluters than as green leaders, things are shifting. By the start of 2023, 23% of the world’s emissions were covered by a carbon price, according to the World Bank, up from just 5% in 2010 (see chart). The spread will only accelerate over the coming years as more countries come around to the advantages of carbon pricing, and existing schemes expand their reach. On October 1st the eu launched a groundbreaking policy under a dreary name. The “carbon border adjustment mechanism” (cbam) will, by 2026, start to levy a carbon price on all the bloc’s imports, meaning that European companies will have a strong incentive to push suppliers around the world to go green.<br />
<br />
If global warming is to be limited, the world must forget about fossil fuels as fast as possible—that much almost everyone agrees upon. How to do so is the complicated part. Economists have long favoured putting a price on carbon, a mechanism that Europe introduced in 2005. Doing so allows the market to identify the cheapest unit of greenhouse gas to cut, and thus society to fight climate change at the lowest possible cost. Others, including many American politicians, worry that such schemes will provoke a backlash by raising consumer costs. Under President Joe Biden, America is instead doling out hundreds of billions of dollars to nurture green supply chains.<br />
Yet, remarkably, the rest of the world is now beginning to look more European—with carbon prices spreading in countries both rich and poor. Take Indonesia, the world’s ninth-biggest polluter. Although it releases 620m tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent a year, with almost half its soaring energy consumption coming from coal, the country has green ambitions. On September 26th, at the launch of its first carbon market, Joko Widodo, the president, talked up its prospects as a hub for the carbon trade, and local banks duly snapped up credits from a geothermal-energy firm. The country also introduced a local emissions-trading scheme in February, which requires large coal-fired plants to buy permits for emissions above a threshold.<br />
<br />
In short, even in countries better known as polluters than as green leaders, things are shifting. By the start of 2023, 23% of the world’s emissions were covered by a carbon price, according to the World Bank, up from just 5% in 2010 (see chart). The spread will only accelerate over the coming years as more countries come around to the advantages of carbon pricing, and existing schemes expand their reach. On October 1st the eu launched a groundbreaking policy under a dreary name. The “carbon border adjustment mechanism” (cbam) will, by 2026, start to levy a carbon price on all the bloc’s imports, meaning that European companies will have a strong incentive to push suppliers around the world to go green.<br />
<br />
The spread of carbon prices is happening in three ways. First, governments are creating new markets and levies. Indonesia is one example. If all goes to plan, its market will eventually be combined with a carbon tax. In April Japan launched a voluntary national market for carbon offsets, which will work alongside an existing regional cap-and-trade policy in place in Tokyo. Participants, accounting for 40% or so of the country’s pollution, will be required to disclose and set emissions targets. Over time the scheme will become stricter, with auctions of carbon allowances for the energy industry due to begin in 2033. Meanwhile, Vietnam is working on an emissions-trading scheme to be established in 2028, in which firms with emissions above a threshold will need to offset them by buying credits.<br />
<br />
Second, countries with more established markets are beefing up their policies. On September 24th China’s National Climate Strategy Centre announced that its emissions-trading scheme, which is the world’s largest, will move from only focusing on the carbon intensity of coal power plants, to focusing on both their intensity and total emissions. The scheme will be linked with a dormant carbon-credit market, allowing plants to meet their obligations by purchasing credits for renewable power, planting forests or restoring mangroves. Australia, which scrapped its original carbon price in 2014, has reformed a previously toothless scheme known as the “safeguard mechanism”. Since July large industrial facilities that account for 28% of the country’s emissions have had to reduce emissions by 4.9% a year against a baseline. Those that fail must buy carbon offsets, which trade at a price of around $20 a tonne.<br />
<br />
The final way in which carbon markets are spreading is through cross-border schemes. The eu’s programme is by far the most advanced. In cbam’s pilot phase importers of aluminium, cement, electricity, fertiliser, hydrogen, iron and steel will need to report “embodied” emissions (those generated through production and transport). Then, from 2026, importers will have to pay a levy equivalent to the difference between the carbon cost of these embodied emissions in the eu’s scheme and any carbon price paid by the exporter in their domestic market. Free permits for sectors will also be phased out, and the housing and transport industries will be brought into the market.<br />
<br />
If global warming is to be limited, the world must forget about fossil fuels as fast as possible—that much almost everyone agrees upon. How to do so is the complicated part. Economists have long favoured putting a price on carbon, a mechanism that Europe introduced in 2005. Doing so allows the market to identify the cheapest unit of greenhouse gas to cut, and thus society to fight climate change at the lowest possible cost. Others, including many American politicians, worry that such schemes will provoke a backlash by raising consumer costs. Under President Joe Biden, America is instead doling out hundreds of billions of dollars to nurture green supply chains.<br />
Yet, remarkably, the rest of the world is now beginning to look more European—with carbon prices spreading in countries both rich and poor. Take Indonesia, the world’s ninth-biggest polluter. Although it releases 620m tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent a year, with almost half its soaring energy consumption coming from coal, the country has green ambitions. On September 26th, at the launch of its first carbon market, Joko Widodo, the president, talked up its prospects as a hub for the carbon trade, and local banks duly snapped up credits from a geothermal-energy firm. The country also introduced a local emissions-trading scheme in February, which requires large coal-fired plants to buy permits for emissions above a threshold.<br />
<br />
In short, even in countries better known as polluters than as green leaders, things are shifting. By the start of 2023, 23% of the world’s emissions were covered by a carbon price, according to the World Bank, up from just 5% in 2010 (see chart). The spread will only accelerate over the coming years as more countries come around to the advantages of carbon pricing, and existing schemes expand their reach. On October 1st the eu launched a groundbreaking policy under a dreary name. The “carbon border adjustment mechanism” (cbam) will, by 2026, start to levy a carbon price on all the bloc’s imports, meaning that European companies will have a strong incentive to push suppliers around the world to go green.<br />
<br />
The spread of carbon prices is happening in three ways. First, governments are creating new markets and levies. Indonesia is one example. If all goes to plan, its market will eventually be combined with a carbon tax. In April Japan launched a voluntary national market for carbon offsets, which will work alongside an existing regional cap-and-trade policy in place in Tokyo. Participants, accounting for 40% or so of the country’s pollution, will be required to disclose and set emissions targets. Over time the scheme will become stricter, with auctions of carbon allowances for the energy industry due to begin in 2033. Meanwhile, Vietnam is working on an emissions-trading scheme to be established in 2028, in which firms with emissions above a threshold will need to offset them by buying credits.<br />
Second, countries with more established markets are beefing up their policies. On September 24th China’s National Climate Strategy Centre announced that its emissions-trading scheme, which is the world’s largest, will move from only focusing on the carbon intensity of coal power plants, to focusing on both their intensity and total emissions. The scheme will be linked with a dormant carbon-credit market, allowing plants to meet their obligations by purchasing credits for renewable power, planting forests or restoring mangroves. Australia, which scrapped its original carbon price in 2014, has reformed a previously toothless scheme known as the “safeguard mechanism”. Since July large industrial facilities that account for 28% of the country’s emissions have had to reduce emissions by 4.9% a year against a baseline. Those that fail must buy carbon offsets, which trade at a price of around $20 a tonne.<br />
<br />
The final way in which carbon markets are spreading is through cross-border schemes. The eu’s programme is by far the most advanced. In cbam’s pilot phase importers of aluminium, cement, electricity, fertiliser, hydrogen, iron and steel will need to report “embodied” emissions (those generated through production and transport). Then, from 2026, importers will have to pay a levy equivalent to the difference between the carbon cost of these embodied emissions in the eu’s scheme and any carbon price paid by the exporter in their domestic market. Free permits for sectors will also be phased out, and the housing and transport industries will be brought into the market.<br />
Many of these schemes will take time to have an impact. Lots in Asia are flimsy, with prices set too low to produce meaningful change—well below the eu’s current price of €80-90 ($85-95), which is itself only approaching climate economists’ estimate of the social cost of carbon. For instance, half the coal plants covered by China’s emissions-trading scheme face a negative carbon price, meaning that they are in effect paid to burn the dirty fuel, since their emission intensity is below the national average, says Lauri Myllyvirta of the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a think-tank. The scheme also fails to create an incentive to shift from coal to other sources of power, he notes.<br />
<br />
Across the world, activists criticise the ability of firms to use offsets to indulge in what they term “greenwashing”, where companies falsely present themselves as environmentally friendly. Some schemes also struggle to prove they have led to emissions reductions. In 2022 a team of academics, led by Andrew Macintosh of Australian National University, argued that reforestation used as carbon credits in Australia’s scheme either did not happen or would have happened irrespective of payments for offsets. An independent review has since recommended changes to how the scheme works.<br />
<br />
Yet even carbon-pricing programmes that are limited will still help change behaviour, for the simple reason that they encourage the monitoring of emissions. After its launch two years ago, China’s emissions-trading scheme was dogged by fraud, with consultants alleged to have helped firms produce fake coal samples. A crackdown was announced by officials earlier this year, who are now satisfied with the quality of data. Despite the absence of a carbon price, American firms also face incentives to monitor emissions. President Biden has proposed a rule that all businesses selling to the federal government must disclose their emissions and have plans to reduce them. Many large firms have set voluntary net-zero targets as part of their marketing efforts. Apple, the world’s largest, has pledged to make its supply chain entirely carbon neutral by 2030.<br />
And manufacturers around the world now face a still greater incentive to accurately track their carbon footprints: cbam. The eu’s ultimate goal is to tackle “carbon leakage”. Before cbam’s introduction, Europe’s carbon price meant that domestic industries faced an extra cost compared with those in countries with less ambitious decarbonisation plans. This gave importers an incentive to source material from abroad, even if these inputs were dirtier. To compensate for this, the eu handed out permits to industrial producers. These will now be phased out as cbam is phased in.<br />
<br />
During the pilot phase, cbam simply presents an extra hurdle (what economists call a “non-tariff barrier”) for exporters to the bloc. To comply, European firms must report the embodied emissions of their imports. If such data do not exist, importers must use reference values provided by the eu. In order to nudge foreign companies to change their behaviour and prove that their emissions are lower, these are based on the emissions of the dirtiest firms in the bloc. From 2026 importers will have to pay the difference between the amount embodied emissions would be charged under the eu’s emissions-trading scheme and whatever carbon price the products pay at home.<br />
Carbon border tariffs may themselves multiply over the coming years. In Australia the government recently announced a review into the country’s “carbon leakage”, which will examine such an option. In 2021 America and the eu paused a trade dispute, begun by President Donald Trump, by starting negotiations over a “Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminium”. America wants the two trading partners to establish a common external tariff on more polluting steel producers. Since America does not have a domestic carbon price, such a policy would flout the rules of the World Trade Organisation. But if the eu and America do not come to an agreement, the Trump-era tariffs and the eu’s retaliatory measures will be reinstated.<br />
<br />
There is a domino effect to carbon pricing. Once an industry is subject to a carbon price its businesses will naturally want their competitors to face the same rules. Therefore owners of coal power plants will lobby to ensure that gas power plants operate on a level playing-field. Governments in exporting countries also have an incentive to ensure that their domestic firms pay a carbon price at home rather than a tariff abroad. If Asia’s factories are pressed to reduce their emissions anyway by schemes such as cbam, then its governments are leaving money on the table by not levying a carbon price of their own.<br />
<br />
The question is whether the dominoes will fall fast enough. Almost no emissions-trading schemes are aimed at emissions from residential property or cars, for instance, where consumers would really feel the pain. In choosing to introduce carbon-pricing schemes, and then to make them broader and more muscular, policymakers have most economists firmly on their side—and are proceeding much faster than is commonly realised. But future policymakers will need to make such policies even more intrusive if the effects of climate change are to be minimised. For that to happen, they will have to win over voters, too.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== US ==<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/10/epas-war-with-california-proves-america-needs-a-carbon-tax EPA’s war with California proves America needs a carbon tax] Dana Nuccitelli; The Guardian; 10 Apr 2018<br />
{{Quote|Artificially low fuel prices are the root of the problem}}<br />
<br />
=== California ===<br />
[http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2016/09/20/a-key-moment-for-california-climate-policy/ A Key Moment for California Climate Policy] Robert Stavins; blog; 20 Sep 2016<br />
{{Quote|With China now the largest emitter in the world, and India and other large developing countries not very far behind, California policies that achieve emission reductions through excessively costly means will fail to encourage other countries to follow, or even recognize, California’s leadership. On the other hand, by increasing reliance on its progressive market-based system, California can succeed at home and be influential around the world.}}<br />
<br />
=== Washington State ===<br />
<br />
[http://scientistsfor732.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/open-letter-on-i-732-from-climate.html Open Letter on I-732 from Climate Scientists] Scientists for I732; 9 Oct 2016<br />
<br />
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/10/environmentalists_are_against_i_732_washington_s_carbon_tax.html Environmentalists’ Disdain for Washington’s Carbon Tax] Shi-Ling Hsu; [[Slate]]; 20 Oct 2016<br />
{{Quote|The first such law in the nation is being hampered by idealists. Instead, they should band together and make history.}}<br />
<br />
=== Appeal to Conservatives ===<br />
<br />
There is some support, and attempts to gather support, from conservatives for carbon pricing/taxation, sometimes using the word "fee" rather than "tax".<br />
<br />
----<br />
[http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/10/03/why-climate-skeptics-should-support-a-carbon-tax/ Why Climate Skeptics Should Support a Carbon Tax] Greg Ip; Wall St Journal; 3 Oct 2016 [paywalled]<br />
{{Quote|four reasons a carbon tax is a good idea even if you're unconvinced by the scientific consensus on climate change}}<br />
==== Jerry Taylor, Niskanen Centre ====<br />
<br />
[http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8588273/the-arguments-that-convinced-this-libertarian-to-support-a-carbon-tax The arguments that convinced a libertarian to support aggressive action on climate]<br />
{{Quote|To the casual observer, the American right can appear an undifferentiated wall of denial and obstructionism on climate change, but behind the scenes there are signs of movement. A growing number of conservative leaders and intellectuals have come to terms with climate science and begun casting about for solutions. Led mainly by libertarians and libertarian-leaning economists, they've begun to coalesce behind a carbon tax, which they consider the most market-friendly of the available alternatives.}}<br />
<br />
[http://niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-Conservative-Case-for-a-Carbon-Tax1.pdf The Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax] Jerry Taylor; Niskanen Center; 23 Mar 2015<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Costly and economically inefficient command-and-control greenhouse gas regulations are firmly entrenched in law, and there is no plausible scenario in which they can be removed by conservative political force. Even were that not the case, the risks imposed by climate change are real, and a policy of ignoring those risks and hoping for the best is inconsistent with risk management practices conservatives embrace in other, non-climate contexts. Conservatives should embrace a carbon tax (a much less costly means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions) in return for elimination of EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse gas emissions, abolition of green energy subsidies and regulatory mandates, and offsetting tax cuts to provide for revenue neutrality.<br />
<br />
Arguments that unilateral action by the United States produces little climate benefit, that a carbon tax will expand the size of government, that a carbon tax is a regressive, that adaptation and geo-engineering is preferable to emissions constraint, that economists cannot confidently design a carbon tax that does more good than harm, that the legislative process cannot deliver a carbon tax worth embracing, and that promoting a carbon tax puts conservatives on a slippery political slope are explored and found wanting.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Citizens' Climate Lobby ====<br />
<br />
[https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/ The Basics of Carbon Fee and Dividend] Citizens' Climate Lobby<br />
{{Quote|How Carbon Fee and Dividend Works<br />
<br />
1. Place a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels<br />
<br />
To account for the cost of burning fossil fuels, we propose an initial fee of $15/ton on the CO2 equivalent emissions of fossil fuels, escalating $10/ton/year, imposed upstream at the mine, well or port of entry.<br />
<br />
Accounting for the true cost of fossil fuel emissions not only creates a level-playing field for all sources of energy, but also informs consumers of the true cost comparison of various fuels when making purchase decisions.<br />
<br />
2. Give 100% of the fees minus administrative costs back to households each month.<br />
<br />
100% of the net fees from the carbon fee are held in a Carbon Fees Trust fund and returned directly to households as a monthly dividend.<br />
<br />
About two-thirds of households will break even or receive more than they would pay in higher prices. This feature will inject billions into the economy, protect family budgets, free households to make independent choices about their energy usage, spur innovation and build aggregate demand for low-carbon products at the consumer level.<br />
<br />
3. Use a border adjustment to stop business relocation.<br />
<br />
Import fees on products imported from countries without a carbon fee, along with rebates to US industries exporting to those countries, will discourage businesses from relocating where they can emit more CO2 and motivate other countries to adopt similar carbon pricing policies. Building upon existing tax and trade systems will avoid complex new institutional arrangements.<br />
<br />
Firms seeking to escape higher energy costs will be discouraged from relocating to non-compliant nations (“leakage”), as their products will be subject to import fees.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oyguP4nLv0 Citizens' Climate Lobby Introductory Video] TouTube<br />
<br />
==== Baker etc / Climate Leadership Council ====<br />
[https://www.clcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/TheConservativeCaseforCarbonDividends.pdf THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR CARBON DIVIDENDS] James A. Baker III, Martin Feldstein, Ted Halstead, N. Gregory Mankiw, Henry M. Paulson Jr., George P. Shultz, Thomas Stephenson, Rob Walton; Climate Leadership Council; Feb 2017<br />
{{Quote|How a new climate strategy can strengthen our economy, reduce regulation, help working-class Americans, shrink government & promote national security<br />
<br />
Mounting evidence of climate change is growing too strong to ignore. While the extent to which climate change is due to man-made causes can be questioned, the risks associated with future warming are too big and should be hedged. At least we need an insurance policy. For too long, many Republicans have looked the other way, forfeiting the policy initiative to those who favor growth-inhibiting command-and-control regulations, and fostering a needless climate divide between the GOP and the scientific, business, military, religious, civic and international mainstream. <br />
<br />
Now that the Republican Party controls the White House and Congress, it has the opportunity and responsibility to promote a climate plan that showcases the full power of enduring conservative convictions. Any climate solution should be based on sound economic analysis and embody the principles of free markets and limited government. As this paper argues, such a plan could strengthen our economy, benefit working-class Americans, reduce regulations, protect our natural heritage and consolidate a new era of Republican leadership. These benefits accrue regardless of one’s views on climate science.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win/ A climate solution where all sides can win] Ted Halstead; TED; 2017<br />
: ''Talk on Climate Leadership Council proposals, with footnotes''<br />
<br />
[http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2017/20170209_PressConference.pdf Fee and Dividend] James Hansen; ; 8 February 2017<br />
: Hansen's press release on the above:<br />
{{Quote|A group of conservative thought leaders1 is bringing forth the pure Fee & Dividend plan. As their report states, fee & dividend is a climate plan that “can strengthen our economy, reduce regulation, help working-class Americans, shrink government and promote national security.”}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/republicans-offer-to-tax-carbon-emissions/ Republicans Offer to Tax Carbon Emissions] Dave Levitan; Scientific American; 8 Feb 2017<br />
{{Quote|A group of prominent Republicans released a “conservative” plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions today, arguing that replacing Obama-era policies with a carbon-tax-and-dividend system would be a politically feasible way to fight off the worst effects of climate change. The plan, released by the Climate Leadership Council in a report titled “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends,” would tax carbon beginning at $40 per ton. The price would then rise each year to help push emissions down. The revenues generated—about $194 billion in the first year, rising up past $250 billion within a decade—would then be redistributed by the Social Security Administration in the form of quarterly checks to every U.S. household. Proponents hope that idea would swing public support toward aggressive climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-proposed-us-carbon-tax-a-recipe-for-disaster/ The proposed US carbon tax – a recipe for disaster] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 15 Feb 2017<br />
{{Quote|A group of Republican elder statesmen have recommended that the US adopt a $40/ton carbon tax as the “most efficient and effective way of reducing CO2 emissions”. This post reviews the potential economic impacts of such a tax on the US energy sector. It concludes that the impacts on the oil and natural gas sectors would be comparatively minor but that the impacts on the coal sector would be severe. Electric utilities with a high percentage of coal in their generation mix could well be driven into bankruptcy.}}<br />
<br />
== Footnotes and references ==<br />
<references /></div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_diamond_batteries&diff=5532Nuclear diamond batteries2023-07-26T20:53:21Z<p>Sisussman: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 3]]<br />
[[Category: Nuclear batteries]]<br />
[[Category: Nuclear waste]]<br />
[[Category: Editorial]]<br />
[[Category: Greenwash]]<br />
<br />
Diamond is a semiconductor which can generate electricity when exposed to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle beta radiation], which comprises electrically charged particles (electrons or positrons). This effect can be used to make beta radiation detectors<ref><br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969804317313155 Energy response of diamond sensor to beta radiation] Modeste Tchakoua Tchouaso, Haruetai Kasiwattanawut, Mark A.Prelas; Applied Radiation and Isotopes; Sept 2018</ref><br />
or as a source of electricity in its own right. Devices generating electricity from beta radiation are generically known as ''betavoltaics'' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaic_device Wikipedia]). Such devices may use beta emitting isotopes such as Tritium (an isotope of Hydrogen) or isotopes of Nickel or Promethium.<br />
<br />
Batteries using these technologies have have extremely low power outputs (in the region of microWatts). However they have lifetimes of thousands or tens of thousands of years, so despite their low power outputs they can have extremely high energy ''density'' (i.e. they store massive amounts of energy in very small space and weight).<br />
<br />
== Russian Nickel-63 battery ==<br />
[[File:Ni-63 diamond battery design.png | thumb | right | Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology battery ]]<br />
A [https://mipt.ru/english/news/prototype_nuclear_battery_packs_10_times_more_power 2018 article from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology] describes work on a battery based on Nickel-63 which claims to achieve an energy density of 3,300 milliwatt-hours per gram, "which is more than in any other nuclear battery based on nickel-63, and 10 times more than the specific energy of commercial chemical cells". The battery has a power output of just under 1 microWatt<ref><br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925963517307495 High power density nuclear battery prototype based on diamond Schottky diodes] V.S.Bormashov, S.Yu.Troschiev, S.A.Tarelkin, A.P.Volkov, D.V.Teteruk, A.V.Golovanov, M.S.Kuznetsov, N.V.Kornilov, S.A.Terentiev, V.D.Blank; Diamond and Related Materials; April 2018</ref>.<br />
<br />
The article also has a brief discussion of the history of betavoltaic generators.<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Back in 1913, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Moseley Henry Moseley] invented the first power generator based on radioactive decay. His nuclear battery consisted of a glass sphere silvered on the inside with a radium emitter mounted at the center on an isolated electrode. Electrons resulting from the beta decay of radium caused a potential difference between the silver film and the central electrode. However, the idle voltage of the device was way too high — tens of kilovolts — and the current was too low for practical applications.<br />
<br />
In 1953, [https://eds.ieee.org/images/files/Awards/paul_rappaport_obituary.pdf Paul Rappaport] proposed the use of semiconducting materials to convert the energy of beta decay into electricity. Beta particles — electrons and positrons — emitted by a radioactive source ionize atoms of a semiconductor, creating uncompensated charge carriers. In the presence of a static field of a p-n structure, the charges flow in one direction, resulting in an electric current. Batteries powered by beta decay came to be known as betavoltaics. The chief advantage of betavoltaic cells over galvanic cells is their longevity: Radioactive isotopes used in nuclear batteries have half-lives ranging from tens to hundreds of years, so their power output remains nearly constant for a very long time. Unfortunately, the power density of betavoltaic cells is significantly lower than that of their galvanic counterparts. Despite this, betavoltaics were in fact used in the ’70s to power cardiac pacemakers, before being phased out by cheaper lithium-ion batteries, even though the latter have shorter lifetimes.<br />
<br />
Betavoltaic power sources should not be confused with radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or RTGs, which are also called nuclear batteries but operate on a different principle. Thermoelectric cells convert the heat released by radioactive decay into electricity using thermocouples. The efficiency of RTGs is only several percent and depends on temperature. But owing to their longevity and relatively simple design, thermoelectric power sources are widely used to power spacecraft such as the New Horizons probe and Mars rover Curiosity. RTGs were previously used on unmanned remote facilities such as lighthouses and automatic weather stations. However, this practice was abandoned, because used radioactive fuel was hard to recycle and leaked into the environment.<br />
}}<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== Carbon-14 battery ==<br />
The Carbon-14 isotope is also a beta emitter and since diamond is a form of carbon and can be made synthetically it should be possible to produce devices in which diamond is both the beta source and the converter of beta radiation to electricity.<br />
<br />
An article on the South-West Nuclear Hub website ''([https://web.archive.org/web/20190216142930/https://southwestnuclearhub.ac.uk/research/case-studies/diamond-battery/ via Internet Archive])'' reports that a prototype had been demonstrated using Nickel-63 but that the team was working to use Carbon-14.<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Current generation in these devices is driven by the beta particle released by each C-14 decay moving into the surrounding diamond structure. This creates successive electron hole pairs due to inelastic impacts with other carbon atoms and generates a cascade of lower energy electrons that are collected at the metal contact to the diamond. In conduction terms, diamond is a semiconductor (like silicon) and like the operation of a silicon solar panel cell, electric current flows when valence electrons are given enough energy to be promoted into the conduction band.<br />
<br />
Despite their low-power, relative to current battery technologies, the life-time of these diamond batteries could revolutionise the powering of devices over long timescales. The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery. Standard alkaline AA batteries are designed for short timeframe discharge: one battery weighing about 20g has an energy storage rating of 700J/g. If operated continuously, this would run out in 24 hours. Using carbon-14 the battery would take 5,730 years to reach 50 per cent power, which is about as long as human civilization has existed. However, it is unlikely that the diamond battery will provide direct power to an attached device. More likely is that it will be associated with a capacitor that will be ‘trickle charged’ by the battery and then discharge at set intervals, to power devices at set intervals or to continually power low draw devices.<br />
<br />
These batteries are envisaged to be used in situations where it is not feasible to charge or replace conventional batteries. Obvious applications would be in low-power electrical devices where long life of the energy source is needed, such as pacemakers, satellites, high-altitude drones or even spacecraft. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.bristol.ac.uk/physics/people/tom-b-scott/index.html Professor Tom Scott] talked about his team's work at the Cabot Institute Annual Lecture 2016 'Ideas to Change the World':<br />
{{#evt:service=youtube |id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvI5kZnq5qY |alignment=center }}<br />
<br />
=== Graphite waste ===<br />
<br />
In his talk Scott talks about the problem of disposing of approximately 90,000 tonnes of radioactive graphite which was used as moderators in the UK's now-decommissioned [[Magnox]] reactors, such as the one at [https://www.power-technology.com/news/cleaning-uk-berkeley-nuclear-power-station Berkeley] in Gloucestershire (to which will be added the graphite in its [[AGR]] fleet as these are decommissioned). This material is classified as intermediate level waste. <br />
The Bristol researchers have found that "the radioactive carbon-14 is concentrated at the surface of these blocks, making it possible to process it to remove the majority of the radioactive material, reducing the cost and challenge of safely storing this nuclear waste. The extracted carbon-14 can then incorporated into a diamond to produce a nuclear-powered battery."<br />
(Of course the C14 component need not be used in this way: it could be disposed of separately to make disposal of the bulk of less-radioactive graphite easier.)<br />
<br />
== Energy density and power density ==<br />
<br />
Nuclear diamond batteries have high energy densities, for example 3,300 milliwatt-hours per gram (i.e. 3.3{{sp}}Wh/g) for the MITP Nickel-63 device above. For comparison Lithium-ion batteries have densities of 100-265{{sp}}Wh/kg i.e. 0.1-0.265{{sp}}Wh/g)<ref><br />
[https://www.cei.washington.edu/education/science-of-solar/battery-technology/#:~:text=They%20have%20one%20of%20the,%2DCd%20or%20Ni%2DMH Lithium-Ion battery] Clean Energy Institute</ref>.<br />
However a Lithium battery can deliver its stored energy in a matter of hours whereas betavoltaic devices deliver theirs at an exponentially decreasing rate as their isotope decays. For example with Nickel-63, which has a half life of 100.1 years, half of its energy will be delivered over the first 100.1 years, half of the remainder over the next, etc. The average power output over the first century will be about 0.2{{sp}}microWatts/g<ref>0.5 * 3.3 Watt hours/gram / 100 years * 365.25 days/year * 24 hours/day = 1.8822E-7 Watts/gram</ref> so a 40g cell (the weight of an 18650 Lithium cell) would give 8{{sp}}microWatts. An 18650 Lithium cell could easily discharge at <br />
a couple of amps, which would give a power output of 8 Watts or so - a million times greater. So nuclear diamond batteries have very low power densities compared to chemical batteries.<br />
<br />
== Greenwash ==<br />
[[File:Nuclear diamond battery.webp | right | thumb ]]<br />
An [https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-ndb article in lifestyle magazine "New Atlas"] claims '''"Nano-diamond self-charging batteries could disrupt energy as we know it"'''<br />
<br />
The article contains a reasonably accurate description of the principle of operation of such devices:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The heart of each cell is a small piece of recycled nuclear waste. NDB uses graphite nuclear reactor parts that have absorbed radiation from nuclear fuel rods and have themselves become radioactive. Untreated, it's high-grade nuclear waste: dangerous, difficult and expensive to store, with a very long half-life.<br />
<br />
This graphite is rich in the carbon-14 radioisotope, which undergoes beta decay into nitrogen, releasing an anti-neutrino and a beta decay electron in the process. NDB takes this graphite, purifies it and uses it to create tiny carbon-14 diamonds. The diamond structure acts as a semiconductor and heat sink, collecting the charge and transporting it out. Completely encasing the radioactive carbon-14 diamond is a layer of cheap, non-radioactive, lab-created carbon-12 diamond, which contains the energetic particles, prevents radiation leaks and acts as a super-hard protective and tamper-proof layer.<br />
<br />
To create a battery cell, several layers of this nano-diamond material are stacked up and stored with a tiny integrated circuit board and a small supercapacitor to collect, store and instantly distribute the charge. NDB says it'll conform to any shape or standard, including AA, AAA, 18650, 2170 or all manner of custom sizes.<br />
<br />
And so what you get is a tiny miniature power generator in the shape of a battery that never needs charging – and that NDB says will be cost-competitive with, and sometimes significantly less expensive than – current lithium batteries. That equation is helped along by the fact that some of the suppliers of the original nuclear waste will pay NDB to take it off their hands.<br />
<br />
Radiation levels from a cell, NDB tells us, will be less than the radiation levels produced by the human body itself, making it totally safe for use in a variety of applications. At the small scale, these could include things like pacemaker batteries and other electronic implants, where their long lifespan will save the wearer from replacement surgeries. They could also be placed directly onto circuit boards, delivering power for the lifespan of a device.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
However the article claims that such batteries could power mobile phones, electric vehicles, and even supply the world's entire energy requirements:<br />
<br />
{{Quote|California company NDB says its nano-diamond batteries will absolutely upend the energy equation, acting like tiny nuclear generators. They will blow any energy density comparison out of the water, lasting anywhere from a decade to 28,000 years without ever needing a charge. {{Hi|They will offer higher power density than lithium-ion.}} They will be nigh-on indestructible and totally safe in an electric car crash. And {{Hi|in some applications, like electric cars, they stand to be considerably cheaper than current lithium-ion packs despite their huge advantages.}}<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
In a consumer electronics application, NDB's Neel Naicker gives us an example of just how different these devices would be: {{Hi|"Think of it in an iPhone. With the same size battery, it would charge your battery from zero to full, five times an hour. Imagine that. Imagine a world where you wouldn't have to charge your battery at all for the day. Now imagine for the week, for the month… How about for decades? That's what we're able to do with this technology."}}<br />
<br />
{{Hi|And it can scale up to electric vehicle sizes and beyond, offering superb power density in a battery pack that is projected to last as long as 90 years in that application – something that could be pulled out of your old car and put into a new one.}} If part of a cell fails, the active nano diamond part can be recycled into another cell, and once they reach the end of their lifespan – which could be up to 28,000 years for a low-powered sensor that might, for example, be used on a satellite – they leave nothing but "harmless byproducts."<br />
<br />
In the words of Dr. John Shawe-Taylor, UNESCO Chair and University College London Professor: “NDB has the potential to solve the major global issue of carbon emissions in one stroke without the expensive infrastructure projects, energy transportation costs, or negative environmental impacts associated with alternate solutions such as carbon capture at fossil fuel power stations, hydroelectric plants, turbines, or nuclear power stations. Their technology’s ability to deliver energy over very long periods of time without the need for recharging, refueling, or servicing puts them in an ideal position to tackle the world’s energy requirements through a distributed solution with close to zero environmental impact and energy transportation costs.”<br />
<br />
Indeed, {{Hi|the NDB battery offers an outstanding 24-hour energy proposition for off-grid living}}, and the NDB team is adamant that it wishes to devote a percentage of its time to providing it to needy remote communities as a charity service with the support of some of the company's business customers.<br />
<br />
Should the company chew right through the world's full supply of carbon-14 nuclear waste – a prospect that would take some extremely serious volume – NDB says it can create its own carbon-14 raw material simply and cost-effectively.<br />
<br />
The company has completed a proof of concept, and is ready to begin building its commercial prototype once its labs reopen after COVID shutdown. A low-powered commercial version is expected to hit the market in less than two years, and the high-powered version is projected for five years' time. NDB says it's well ahead of its competition with patents pending on its technology and manufacturing processes.<br />
<br />
Should this pan out as promised, it's hard to see how this won't be a revolutionary power source. {{Hi|Such a long-life battery would fundamentally challenge the disposable ethos of many modern technologies, or lead to battery packs that consumers carry with them from phone to phone, car to car, laptop to laptop across decades. NDB-equipped homes can be grid-connected or not. Each battery is its own near-inexhaustible green energy source, quietly turning nuclear waste into useful energy.}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Hi|The article, and the "NDB" company it quotes, are making claims about power density which are simply not true; they are off by a a factor of millions.}}<br />
<br />
=== Snopes ===<br />
<br />
Snopes [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/radioactive-diamond-batteries-real-thing/ assesses] the claim that "Man-made, radioactive “diamond batteries” are capable of providing thousands of years of energy without a charge" as a mixture of true and false, summarising:<br />
{{Quote|'''While the science underpinning the concept is valid, its application remains wholly theoretical at this point.'''<br />
<br />
'''What's True'''<br />
<br><br />
The idea of generating a virtually inexhaustible source of energy from radioactive material has long been discussed and, indeed, is already employed in a variety of non diamond-based technologies; “diamond batteries” are a theoretical application of this technology currently in development.<br />
<br />
'''What's False'''<br />
<br><br />
The concept of a “diamond battery”, which would be created synthetically from radioactive carbon-14 sourced from nuclear waste is, at this point, a theoretical idea and it is one that comes with myriad challenges not discussed in viral stories.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Snopes refers to an [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/these-scientists-are-turning-radioactive-waste-into-diamond-batteries article in the World Economic Forum’s “Futurism” column] based (with many errors) on Tom Scott's Cabot Institute lecture.<br />
<br />
Snopes makes its own errors, claiming that "undisposable radioactive graphite" builds up "in containers that store spent nuclear fuel", and that Plutonium was used in betavoltaic heart pacemaker power supplies<ref><br />
It was used in pacemakers but Plutonium is not a beta emitter and it was used in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators]</ref>.<br />
<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Economics&diff=5531Economics2023-04-17T09:56:46Z<p>Sisussman: /* Economics and climate mitigation */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:3]]<br />
[[Category:Economics]]<br />
<br />
A possibly common perception of "economics" is that it is only concerned with money, that it is dull, and of relevance only to [https://www.lexico.com/definition/bean_counter bean counters]. Whether or not this is an accurate assessment of some sub-disciplines of economics, other aspects (generally classified as ''macroeconomics'') are concerned with, or relevant to, broader issues of prosperity, political stability, social justice, motivation, and even the survival of humanity. <br />
<br />
Another popular impression of economics is that it is politically conservative and supportive of capitalism and financial institutions. Whilst many economists may be right-leaning, it is not inherent in the discipline. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx Karl Marx] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes John Maynard Keynes] were economists. And economic analysis can be applied to systems other than monetary ones, such as the relationship between abortion laws and violent crime.<ref><br />
''See'' '''Freakonomics'''<br />
by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner<br />
[http://freakonomics.com/books/#freakonomics [website]]<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
In his book "The Undercover Economist"<ref><br />
'''The Undercover Economist''' (ISBN 0-19-518977-9) (ISBN 0345494016) by Tim Harford published in 2005 by Little, Brown.<br />
See book description on Harford's website: [http://timharford.com/etc/undercovereconomist/ [link]]<br />
</ref> economist Tim Harford gives an accessible (and possibly amusing) explanation of some concepts in economics such as the theoretical 'perfect market', 'efficiency' and fairness, 'externalities', imperfect markets such as used-car sales and the US health system, unintended consequences of regulations such as the Merton Rule, the effect of import tariffs on exports, of trade and trade barriers on world development and poverty, and more.<br />
<br />
Of relevance to the issue of how we sustain human life on Earth, Harford addresses issues such as the environmental costs of transport of goods, the relationship between development and pollution and environmental degradation and climate change, whether free trade is better or worse for the world's poorest people, and how economic measures could determine the cost of decarbonising electricity and drive decarbonisation generally.<br />
Using the thought experiment of a conscientious consumer who wishes to minimise their carbon footprint by gathering infeasably massive amounts of data on everything they consider buying in order to make informed choices he shows how [[carbon pricing]] can achieve much the same effect without any effort, or indeed desire, on the part of the consumer to do the right thing.<ref><br />
'''Adapt: why success always starts with failure'''<br />
(ISBN-13: 978-0349121512) (ISBN-10: 0349121516)<br />
by Tim Harford<br />
See book description on Harford's website: [http://timharford.com/books/adapt/ [link]]<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
Behavioural economics (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics Wikipedia]) brings psychology into economic analyses. Perhaps the best known part of this field is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory nudge theory]. <br />
<br />
== Economics of climate mitigation ==<br />
Taking the actions needed to effectively mitigate climate change - replacing fossil fuels with clean energy sources, changing land use etc - will obviously cost money, at least in the short term (some changes may result in cost savings in the long run, similarly to the way that buying an Electric Vehicle is more expensive than one with an Internal Combustion Engine, but results in lower fuel and maintenance costs).<br />
<br />
However the effects of climate change will also result in costs, such as storm, fire and flood damages, increased cost of food due to poorer crop yields etc. So the multi-billion dollar question is which costs are higher. For decades the conventional wisdom amongst economists was that the costs of mitigation were far high than the costs of dealing with climate change, but more recent research using improved estimates of costs has found that decarbonisation is less expensive and the effects of climate change are more expensive than first believed.<br />
<br />
{{q|For decades, many economists’ analyses seemed to justify inaction on weaning the economy from fossil fuels, saying the astronomical cost of such rapid transformation would strangle economic growth. These experts were heeded over scientists who warned that acting too slowly would court climate catastrophe. <br />
<br />
But in recent years, more economists have begun to agree that the short-term costs of aggressive action are not as high as once thought, while the long-term costs of inaction are much steeper. A new working paper by two climate scientists and one climate economist, using the most up-to-date data available, concludes the best path for the global economy would involve a rapid and dramatic cut in climate pollution to meet the ambitious Paris target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures — a target that is quickly slipping out of reach.<br />
<br />
The new study adds to research over the past decade that has incorporated newer, more realistic representations of climate damages into economic models. Several other updated analyses also have concluded that meeting the Paris targets would result in the best economic outcome. Fewer experts are basing their advice on prior studies that actually concluded a potentially catastrophic amount of global warming would be economically optimal. <br />
<br />
“Based on everything we think we know about technology, climate damages, etc. it would indeed be ‘optimal’ to cut emissions massively now,” said the paper’s co-author Gernot Wagner. Achieving such rapid decarbonization would require climate policies commensurate with a global carbon price of about $250 per ton of carbon dioxide today but declining to below $40 per ton in 2100 as the prices for clean technology come down.<br />
<br />
Wagner has compared climate economics to financial investments. Many investors put money in bonds despite their lower returns than stocks because bonds are less risky. This is analogous to investing in decarbonization today to reduce long-term risks, rather than trying to accumulate wealth in the hopes that it can pay for the costs of potentially catastrophic future climate damages. <br />
}} <br />
:(from [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/04/drastic-climate-action-is-the-best-course-for-economic-growth-new-study-finds Drastic climate action is the best course for economic growth, new study finds, by Dana Nuccitelli in Yale Climate Connections, 14 April 2023])<br />
<br />
== Economics as a tool for climate mitigation ==<br />
{{#evt:<br />
service=youtube<br />
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdUA0KiJAgA<br />
|alignment=right<br />
|container=frame<br />
|description='''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdUA0KiJAgA "How can we stop causing climate change?" - Dieter Helm]'''<br />
}}<br />
In this interview with Syed Kamall of the Institute of Economic Affairs (a UK free-market think tank), Professor Dieter Helm discusses the costs and economic mechanisms by which the UK could meet its 2050 target of net zero emissions. Dieter Helm is Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Economics at New College, Oxford, and has provided extensive advice to UK and European governments, including The [[Helm review| Cost of Energy: independent review]] for the UK government in October 2017 and for the European Commission in preparing the Energy Roadmap 2030.<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== Further Reading ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/22/what-is-the-cheapest-way-to-cut-carbon What is the cheapest way to cut carbon?] The Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|In the trendier parts of Berlin, cargo bikes are the rage. Locals use the bicycles, which have a wheelbarrow-sized box at the front, to do the weekly shop or ferry children around. Because they cut carbon-dioxide emissions, local authorities are subsidising the craze. But the well-intentioned schemes look pricey when you consider how much carbon is abated. One such scheme costs the city €370,000 ($450,000), but is expected to reduce emissions by only seven tonnes a year. That works out at over €50,000 per tonne abated. The equivalent figure for schemes that support the sale of low-carbon heating systems, by contrast, is €200 per tonne.}}<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Economics&diff=5530Economics2023-04-17T09:22:49Z<p>Sisussman: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:3]]<br />
[[Category:Economics]]<br />
<br />
A possibly common perception of "economics" is that it is only concerned with money, that it is dull, and of relevance only to [https://www.lexico.com/definition/bean_counter bean counters]. Whether or not this is an accurate assessment of some sub-disciplines of economics, other aspects (generally classified as ''macroeconomics'') are concerned with, or relevant to, broader issues of prosperity, political stability, social justice, motivation, and even the survival of humanity. <br />
<br />
Another popular impression of economics is that it is politically conservative and supportive of capitalism and financial institutions. Whilst many economists may be right-leaning, it is not inherent in the discipline. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx Karl Marx] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes John Maynard Keynes] were economists. And economic analysis can be applied to systems other than monetary ones, such as the relationship between abortion laws and violent crime.<ref><br />
''See'' '''Freakonomics'''<br />
by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner<br />
[http://freakonomics.com/books/#freakonomics [website]]<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
In his book "The Undercover Economist"<ref><br />
'''The Undercover Economist''' (ISBN 0-19-518977-9) (ISBN 0345494016) by Tim Harford published in 2005 by Little, Brown.<br />
See book description on Harford's website: [http://timharford.com/etc/undercovereconomist/ [link]]<br />
</ref> economist Tim Harford gives an accessible (and possibly amusing) explanation of some concepts in economics such as the theoretical 'perfect market', 'efficiency' and fairness, 'externalities', imperfect markets such as used-car sales and the US health system, unintended consequences of regulations such as the Merton Rule, the effect of import tariffs on exports, of trade and trade barriers on world development and poverty, and more.<br />
<br />
Of relevance to the issue of how we sustain human life on Earth, Harford addresses issues such as the environmental costs of transport of goods, the relationship between development and pollution and environmental degradation and climate change, whether free trade is better or worse for the world's poorest people, and how economic measures could determine the cost of decarbonising electricity and drive decarbonisation generally.<br />
Using the thought experiment of a conscientious consumer who wishes to minimise their carbon footprint by gathering infeasably massive amounts of data on everything they consider buying in order to make informed choices he shows how [[carbon pricing]] can achieve much the same effect without any effort, or indeed desire, on the part of the consumer to do the right thing.<ref><br />
'''Adapt: why success always starts with failure'''<br />
(ISBN-13: 978-0349121512) (ISBN-10: 0349121516)<br />
by Tim Harford<br />
See book description on Harford's website: [http://timharford.com/books/adapt/ [link]]<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
Behavioural economics (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics Wikipedia]) brings psychology into economic analyses. Perhaps the best known part of this field is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory nudge theory]. <br />
<br />
== Economics and climate mitigation ==<br />
{{#evt:<br />
service=youtube<br />
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdUA0KiJAgA<br />
|alignment=right<br />
|container=frame<br />
|description='''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdUA0KiJAgA "How can we stop causing climate change?" - Dieter Helm]'''<br />
}}<br />
In this interview with Syed Kamall of the Institute of Economic Affairs (a UK free-market think tank), Professor Dieter Helm discusses the costs and economic mechanisms by which the UK could meet its 2050 target of net zero emissions. Dieter Helm is Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Economics at New College, Oxford, and has provided extensive advice to UK and European governments, including The [[Helm review| Cost of Energy: independent review]] for the UK government in October 2017 and for the European Commission in preparing the Energy Roadmap 2030.<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== Further Reading ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/22/what-is-the-cheapest-way-to-cut-carbon What is the cheapest way to cut carbon?] The Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|In the trendier parts of Berlin, cargo bikes are the rage. Locals use the bicycles, which have a wheelbarrow-sized box at the front, to do the weekly shop or ferry children around. Because they cut carbon-dioxide emissions, local authorities are subsidising the craze. But the well-intentioned schemes look pricey when you consider how much carbon is abated. One such scheme costs the city €370,000 ($450,000), but is expected to reduce emissions by only seven tonnes a year. That works out at over €50,000 per tonne abated. The equivalent figure for schemes that support the sale of low-carbon heating systems, by contrast, is €200 per tonne.}}<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=What_is_energy%3F&diff=5529What is energy?2023-01-01T23:18:31Z<p>Sisussman: /* Homes (and other units) */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:3]]<br />
[[Category:Energy]]<br />
Energy is vital for our lives: our bodies run on the energy we get from the food we eat, which requires energy to farm, process, transport and cook. Our industries, commerce, education, health-care, communications and recreation all consume energy. Some of this energy comes from the sun, such as our food, and biomass (such as firewood), which are produced by plants converting solar energy into chemical energy via photosynthesis. Water power driving water wheels, and turbines to drive mills and produce hydroelectricity are also powered by solar energy which evaporates water from seas to produce rain which falls from higher altitudes. However most of the energy we use now comes from burning fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. These are also derived from energy from the sun, but energy that has been built up over millions of years, and which we are burning millions of times faster than it was stored. Our food, biomass and fossil fuels all release Carbon Dioxide ({{CO2}}) into the atmosphere, which causes global warming, and dissolves into water causing ocean acidification. However when we burn food and biomass they release {{CO2}} at about the same rate that it was removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, whereas burning fossil fuels quickly releases Carbon that has been locked up for [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/carboniferous 300 million years or more].<br />
<br />
== Energy and Power ==<br />
The terms '''Energy''' and '''Power''' tend to be used interchangeably to refer to the electricity, oil, gas etc we all consume, and we talk about "wind energy" and "solar power" in the same context. However the terms have specific - and different - meanings: '''energy''' is the ability to do a certain amount of work e.g. boil a particular quantity of water or move a car a certain distance, and '''power''' is the rate at which work is done - how quickly the water is heated or the car travels. '''Energy''' and '''work''' can be thought of as cause and effect: putting a certain amount of energy into a kettle or a car results in an equivalent amount of heating or movement happening in it.<br />
<br />
== Units of measurement ==<br />
<br />
=== Watts ===<br />
There are various different units for measuring energy (or work) and power. For '''power''' probably the most common units are '''watts''' ('''W'''), '''kilowatts''' ('''KW'''), '''megawatts''' ('''MW'''), '''gigawatts''' ('''GW''') and even '''terawatts''' ('''TW'''). <br />
For '''energy''' common units are '''watt hours''' (or more commonly '''kilowatt hours''' ('''KWh''')). <br />
The "'''unit'''" of electricity (used on British electricity meters and bills) is the same as one KWh. <br />
Sometimes a quantity of energy (e.g. the amount supplied by a solar panel over a certain period) is wrongly (and confusingly) stated as so many ''kilowatts'' rather than ''kilowatt hours''.<br />
<br />
=== kWh/y and Joules ===<br />
<br />
Another unit of power based on watts is kilowatt hours per year. Since there are 8,766 hours in a year a power of 1KW (roughly the consumption of a 1 bar electric fire) is 8,766 KWh/y. A unit of energy more often used in scientific work is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule Joule], which is one watt second, so 3,600 (60 times 60) joules are a watt hour, and 3.6 megajoules are 1KWh (or Unit).<br />
<br />
=== Horespower, BTUs and TOEs ===<br />
An older unit of power is the '''horsepower''', which is about 746 Watts. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_thermal_unit '''British Thermal Unit'''] ('''BTU''' or '''BThU''') is another old unit of energy, which is mostly obsolete in the UK (though still used in the US). A common measure of energy, usually used on a large, even national, scale, is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne_of_oil_equivalent '''Tonne of Oil Equivalent'''] and its multiples such as the '''mega-tonne of oil equivalent''' ('''MTOE''').<br />
<br />
=== Cubic Miles of Oil ===<br />
A Mega-Tonne of Oil is not an easy quantity to visualise and global scales of energy are measured in daunting numbers of MTOEs, so the unit of a Cubic Mile of Oil (a "CMO") has been suggested. (Globally we consume about one Cubic Mile of Oil plus the equivalent of another CMO-worth of energy from coal, about 3/4 of a CMO-worth of natural gas, and 1/4 CMO-worth each of hydro, nuclear, and wood. Solar, wind, and biofuels are less than 1/10th of a CMO-worth. Total energy consumption is the equivalent of about 3.5 Cubic Miles of Oil.)<br />
<br />
=== Homes (and other units) ===<br />
Publicity material and news articles about energy projects often talk about the number of '''homes''' they can power. One figure for the amount of power this represents is given by DUKES<ref><br />
DUKES - the Digest Of UK Energy Statistics - is at the [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/digest-of-uk-energy-statistics-dukes gov.uk website]<br />
<br><br />
''The original link, to the website of [http://villageeye.co.uk/Villageeye/25-hectare-solar-farm-proposed-at-pingewood/ Village Eye]<br />
is no longer active''</ref><br />
of 4370&nbsp;KWh per household per annum. This equates to about 0.5&nbsp;kW or 500&nbsp;Watts, so dividing the number of "homes" by 2 gives the equivalent kilowatts.<br />
According to David MacKay<ref><br />
Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air<br />
[https://withouthotair.com/cI/page_329.shtml p329]</ref><br />
the British Wind Energy Association uses the figure 4700&nbsp;kWh per year, equivalent to 0.54&nbsp;kW or 540&nbsp;Watts, and other organisations use 4000&nbsp;kWh/y per household -- 0.46&nbsp;kW or 460&nbsp;Watts.<br />
<br />
North American usage is higher: Canada's Ontario Power Generation cites "monthly domestic usage of 972&nbsp;kWh per home" or 1.33&nbsp;kW.<ref><br />
"Electricity Generated in Ontario", [https://cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html webroots.ca] website</ref><br />
<br />
MacKay also points out that the “home” unit only covers average domestic electricity consumption of a household, not gas or oil used for home heating, cooking and hot water, the energy that occupants use in their workplaces and for transport, or all the other energy-consuming things that society does for them; all of which add up to roughly 24 times more than a "home".<br />
<br />
<br />
MacKay also discusses other units including <br />
[https://withouthotair.com/cI/page_330.shtml "'''power stations'''", "'''cars taken off the road'''", "'''calories'''"], [https://withouthotair.com/cI/page_330.shtml '''barrels''', '''gallons''', '''tons''', '''BTUs''', '''quads''', '''cups of tea'''], [https://withouthotair.com/cI/page_332.shtml '''double decker buses''', '''Albert Halls''' and '''Wembley Stadiums''']. (Not to be confused with [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46737277 '''The Size of Wales'''] which is a unit of area.)<br />
<br />
MacKay also provided this [http://withouthotair.com/cL/page_370.shtml chart] for translating power units.<br />
<br />
[[File:SEWTHA powerChart.png]]<br />
<br />
The IEA provides an [http://www.iea.org/statistics/resources/unitconverter/ online energy units conversion calculator].<br />
<br />
== Primary, secondary, and final energy, and thermal equivalence ==<br />
<br />
Fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, and biomass, contain hydrocarbons which embody certain amounts of chemical energy which can be released by oxidation, e.g. by burning them. Water in a reservoir has potential energy which can be released by letting it descend to a lower height. Flowing water and wind has kinetic energy which can be tapped by slowing it. The light and heat of the sun are forms of energy embodied in electromagnetic radiation, and certain isotopes of Uranium and some other elements can release energy when their atoms split. These are forms of ''primary energy''. <br />
<br />
When we burn fossil fuels or biomass, fission Uranium in a nuclear reactor, or focus sunlight on a target in a solar thermal power station, we generally produce steam, as ''secondary energy'', which we then use to drive turbines to drive generators which produce electricity which is delivered to consumers as ''final energy''. The distinction between secondary and final energy depends on what parts of a system one is analysing: for example electricity is never consumed directly, but is always converted to other forms of energy such as heat in a toaster, kettle or electric arc furnace, to light in lamps, or to mechanical work in electric vehicles (possibly via chemical energy in batteries). However for the purposes of planning sustainable energy systems, and factoring in {{CO2}} emissions, it is generally useful to consider electricity as a final energy form.<br />
<br />
Where this really matters is when we want to compare fuels for producing electricity. Power sources such as solar photovoltaic, wind, hydroelectric, wave and tide produce electricity directly, whereas coal, oil, gas, biomass, and nuclear produce heat. Electricity can be converted to heat, if that's what we want (for example for heating buildings, or in industrial processes), with practically 100% efficiency, but converting heat energy to electricity is, at best, only around 60% efficient, and often only half that.<br />
<br />
So if we know that a country consumes, say, a certain amount of coal, oil, or gas, resulting in a corresponding amount of {{CO2}} emissions, how much emission could be saved by replacing the fossil fuel with carbon free electricity depends on what the fuel is being used for. If it is used for heating then every unit of clean electricity will replace approximately the same amount of primary energy (since combustion fuels can be converted into heat very efficiently). But if the fossil fuel is being used to generate electricity then a carbon-free alternative will replace far more fossil fuel primary energy (and emissions) - how much more depending on the conversion efficiency. For example with a 33.3% conversion efficiency one unit of clean energy will replace 3 units of fossil fuel.<br />
<br />
In some statistical publications this sort of conversion is assumed, and factored in to allow meaningful comparison of, say, how much fossil fuel is saved by a given amount of hydro, wind or nuclear. This conversion is particularly likely to have been used when "tonnes of oil equivalent" ("toe"s) and their multiples (Mtoes, Gtoes) are quoted, for example in the BP Statistical Review (which uses a conversion factor of 38% - "the average for OECD thermal power generation").<br />
<br />
''See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy Primary energy] on Wikipedia''<br />
<br />
== Energy density and population density ==<br />
<br />
Different parts of the world have different densities of population, and those people use energy at different rates (so in cities in the developed, "first" world more energy is consumed in a given area than in rural areas in the developing world).<br />
<br />
Different sources of energy also have different densities: a 1GW coal, gas or nuclear power station may require a few tens of square kilometres (including the mines or wells needed to supply it) whereas to generate the same power from say, biomass, requires thousands of square kilometres to grow energy crops. When considering what sources of energy could power a given country or region we can compare the energy densities of supply and demand; [http://inference.org.uk/sustainable/data/powerd/MapOfWorld.html David MacKay's Map of the World] provides a convenient way of doing so visually for various countries and sources of low-carbon energy.<br />
<br />
[[File:MacKay PPPersonVsPDen2WA.eps.png]]<br />
<br />
== Capacity Factor ==<br />
<br />
Generators - whether fossil fuelled, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar etc - don't produce electricity (or other forms of useful energy) continuously, 24*7. All mechanical plants can break down, and most are stopped from time to time for inspection and maintenance. Most present day nuclear power stations have to be shut down for refuelling. And hydro, wind, solar, wave and tidal generators can only produce energy when there is the water, wind, sun, wave and tidal conditions they need. The percentage of a generator's maximum ("nameplate") output (or "installed capacity") which it achieves over a representative period in practice is known as its "capacity factor"; this is typically in the range 10-30% for solar, 20-40% for wind and around 90% for nuclear and other thermal power stations.<br />
<br />
Because of the significant difference in capacity factors between - in particular - solar and wind, and nuclear, it is misleading to compare installed capacities without compensating for capacity factors. (See e.g. [https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/no-chinas-wind-farms-dont-produce-more-electricity-than-americas-nuclear-power-plants/ this] and [https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/dont-plot-renewables-and-nuclear-capacity-on-the-same-graph/ this]).<br />
<br />
== Energy Return On Energy Invested ==<br />
<br />
Energy is needed to build, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission any power generating plant. As long as the plant generates more energy in its lifetime than it consumes it will provide a surplus for useful purposes. The greater the surplus the more it allows society to provide other goods and services – to grow food, to build, heat and cool homes and workplaces, run water and sewerage services, provide education, health care, transport, recreation etc. The ratio of energy generated to energy consumed is known as '''Energy Return On Energy Invested''' ('''EROEI''', or sometimes '''EROI''') and it is estimated that for a modern civilisation to function the EROEI of its energy supplies in aggregate must be in the region of 10 or more.<br />
<br />
Even an EROEI less than unity – a system that consumes more energy than it produces – may be useful if it provides services such as storing energy for use when and where it is needed but unavailable, such as to supply energy when demand temporarily exceeds supply, or to convey energy from fixed generators to electric vehicles. However the overall, aggregate, EROEI of the system of generators and storage systems must still be high enough to allow for a functioning civilisation.<br />
<br />
''For more see [[Energy Return On Energy Invested]]''<br />
<br />
== Carbon Intensity ==<br />
<br />
Also known as '''emission intensity''', '''life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions''' or '''levelized {{CO2}} emissions''', the carbon intensity of an energy source is the amount of {{CO2}} and equivalent greenhouse gases (e.g. Methane) it emits for each unit of energy (usually electricity) it produces. It is important that the emissions incurred in building and decommissioning generating plant, and mining, processing and transporting fuel, etc, are included, not just the emissions from burning fuel itself. Thus non-fossil fuel sources like wind, solar and nuclear do not have zero emissions (although their emissions are very low). Emissions from these non-generating processes may be subject to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_circle_and_vicious_circle virtuous circle] where these emissions become smaller as the carbon intensity of the electricity (and other fuels) they use decreases.<br />
<br />
<!-- ''For more see [[Carbon intensity]].'' --><br />
<br />
== Safety ==<br />
<br />
As with carbon intensity, the safety of an energy source must include all deaths and injuries involved in the technology e.g. from mining accidents, from air pollution produced by burning fuels, etc. <br />
<br />
This "Visual Capitalist" page [http://metals.visualcapitalist.com/safest-source-energy/ discusses] the relative safety of different sources of energy, which it presents in this graphic:<br />
<br />
[[File:Safest-energy-sources--VisualCapitalist.png|640px]]<br />
<br />
The [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ Visual Capitalist] site actually specialises in graphical visualisations of all sorts, from [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/online-dating-big-business/ the rise of online dating] to [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/climate-smart-mining-minerals-for-climate-action/ the raw materials demand for wind, solar and electric vehicles].<br />
<br />
''See also [[Safety of energy sources]] article.''<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== FURTHER READING ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison] Lazard<br />
<br />
[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/store-electric-grid-030513.html Stanford scientists calculate the carbon footprint of grid-scale battery technologies]<br />
: Stanford scientists have developed a novel way to calculate the energetic cost of building large batteries and other storage technologies for the electrical grid.<br />
<br />
[http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1996/20110431.full.pdf+html Solar energy in the context of energy use, energy transportation and energy storage] David MacKay; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society<br />
: In a decarbonized world that is renewable-powered, the land area required to maintain today's British energy consumption would have to be similar to the area of Britain.<br />
<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=What_is_energy%3F&diff=5528What is energy?2023-01-01T23:18:06Z<p>Sisussman: /* Homes (and other units) */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:3]]<br />
[[Category:Energy]]<br />
Energy is vital for our lives: our bodies run on the energy we get from the food we eat, which requires energy to farm, process, transport and cook. Our industries, commerce, education, health-care, communications and recreation all consume energy. Some of this energy comes from the sun, such as our food, and biomass (such as firewood), which are produced by plants converting solar energy into chemical energy via photosynthesis. Water power driving water wheels, and turbines to drive mills and produce hydroelectricity are also powered by solar energy which evaporates water from seas to produce rain which falls from higher altitudes. However most of the energy we use now comes from burning fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. These are also derived from energy from the sun, but energy that has been built up over millions of years, and which we are burning millions of times faster than it was stored. Our food, biomass and fossil fuels all release Carbon Dioxide ({{CO2}}) into the atmosphere, which causes global warming, and dissolves into water causing ocean acidification. However when we burn food and biomass they release {{CO2}} at about the same rate that it was removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, whereas burning fossil fuels quickly releases Carbon that has been locked up for [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/carboniferous 300 million years or more].<br />
<br />
== Energy and Power ==<br />
The terms '''Energy''' and '''Power''' tend to be used interchangeably to refer to the electricity, oil, gas etc we all consume, and we talk about "wind energy" and "solar power" in the same context. However the terms have specific - and different - meanings: '''energy''' is the ability to do a certain amount of work e.g. boil a particular quantity of water or move a car a certain distance, and '''power''' is the rate at which work is done - how quickly the water is heated or the car travels. '''Energy''' and '''work''' can be thought of as cause and effect: putting a certain amount of energy into a kettle or a car results in an equivalent amount of heating or movement happening in it.<br />
<br />
== Units of measurement ==<br />
<br />
=== Watts ===<br />
There are various different units for measuring energy (or work) and power. For '''power''' probably the most common units are '''watts''' ('''W'''), '''kilowatts''' ('''KW'''), '''megawatts''' ('''MW'''), '''gigawatts''' ('''GW''') and even '''terawatts''' ('''TW'''). <br />
For '''energy''' common units are '''watt hours''' (or more commonly '''kilowatt hours''' ('''KWh''')). <br />
The "'''unit'''" of electricity (used on British electricity meters and bills) is the same as one KWh. <br />
Sometimes a quantity of energy (e.g. the amount supplied by a solar panel over a certain period) is wrongly (and confusingly) stated as so many ''kilowatts'' rather than ''kilowatt hours''.<br />
<br />
=== kWh/y and Joules ===<br />
<br />
Another unit of power based on watts is kilowatt hours per year. Since there are 8,766 hours in a year a power of 1KW (roughly the consumption of a 1 bar electric fire) is 8,766 KWh/y. A unit of energy more often used in scientific work is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule Joule], which is one watt second, so 3,600 (60 times 60) joules are a watt hour, and 3.6 megajoules are 1KWh (or Unit).<br />
<br />
=== Horespower, BTUs and TOEs ===<br />
An older unit of power is the '''horsepower''', which is about 746 Watts. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_thermal_unit '''British Thermal Unit'''] ('''BTU''' or '''BThU''') is another old unit of energy, which is mostly obsolete in the UK (though still used in the US). A common measure of energy, usually used on a large, even national, scale, is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne_of_oil_equivalent '''Tonne of Oil Equivalent'''] and its multiples such as the '''mega-tonne of oil equivalent''' ('''MTOE''').<br />
<br />
=== Cubic Miles of Oil ===<br />
A Mega-Tonne of Oil is not an easy quantity to visualise and global scales of energy are measured in daunting numbers of MTOEs, so the unit of a Cubic Mile of Oil (a "CMO") has been suggested. (Globally we consume about one Cubic Mile of Oil plus the equivalent of another CMO-worth of energy from coal, about 3/4 of a CMO-worth of natural gas, and 1/4 CMO-worth each of hydro, nuclear, and wood. Solar, wind, and biofuels are less than 1/10th of a CMO-worth. Total energy consumption is the equivalent of about 3.5 Cubic Miles of Oil.)<br />
<br />
=== Homes (and other units) ===<br />
Publicity material and news articles about energy projects often talk about the number of '''homes''' they can power. One figure for the amount of power this represents is given by DUKES<ref><br />
DUKES - the Digest Of UK Energy Statistics - is at the [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/digest-of-uk-energy-statistics-dukes gov.uk website]<br />
<br><br />
''The original link, to the website of [http://villageeye.co.uk/Villageeye/25-hectare-solar-farm-proposed-at-pingewood/ Village Eye]<br />
is no longer active''</ref><br />
of 4370&nbsp;KWh per household per annum. This equates to about 0.5&nbsp;kW or 500&nbsp;Watts, so dividing the number of "homes" by 2 gives the equivalent kilowatts.<br />
According to David MacKay<ref><br />
Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air<br />
[https://withouthotair.com/cI/page_329.shtml p329]</ref><br />
the British Wind Energy Association uses the figure 4700&nbsp;kWh per year, equivalent to 0.54&nbsp;kW or 540&nbsp;Watts, and other organisations use 4000&nbsp;kWh/y per household -- 0.46&nbsp;kW or 460&nbsp;Watts.<br />
<br />
North American usage is higher: Canada's Ontario Power Generation cites "monthly domestic usage of 972&nbsp;kWh per home" or 1.33&nbsp;kW.<ref><br />
"Electricity Generated in Ontario", [https://cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html webroots.ca] website</ref><br />
<br />
MacKay also points out that the “home” unit only covers average domestic electricity consumption of a household, not gas or oil used for home heating, cooking and hot water, the energy that occupants use in their workplaces and for transport, or all the other energy-consuming things that society does for them; all of which add up to roughly 24 times more than a "home".<br />
<br />
<br />
MacKay also discusses other units including <br />
[https://withouthotair.com/cI/page_330.shtml "'''power stations'''", "'''cars taken off the road'''", "'''calories'''"], [https://withouthotair.com/cI/page_330.shtml '''barrels''', '''gallons''', '''tons''', '''BTUs''', '''quads''', '''cups of tea'''], [https://withouthotair.com/cI/page_332.shtml '''double decker buses''', '''Albert Halls''' and '''Wembley Stadiums''']. (Not to be confused with [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46737277 '''The Size of Wales'''] which is ia unit of area.)<br />
<br />
MacKay also provided this [http://withouthotair.com/cL/page_370.shtml chart] for translating power units.<br />
<br />
[[File:SEWTHA powerChart.png]]<br />
<br />
The IEA provides an [http://www.iea.org/statistics/resources/unitconverter/ online energy units conversion calculator].<br />
<br />
== Primary, secondary, and final energy, and thermal equivalence ==<br />
<br />
Fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, and biomass, contain hydrocarbons which embody certain amounts of chemical energy which can be released by oxidation, e.g. by burning them. Water in a reservoir has potential energy which can be released by letting it descend to a lower height. Flowing water and wind has kinetic energy which can be tapped by slowing it. The light and heat of the sun are forms of energy embodied in electromagnetic radiation, and certain isotopes of Uranium and some other elements can release energy when their atoms split. These are forms of ''primary energy''. <br />
<br />
When we burn fossil fuels or biomass, fission Uranium in a nuclear reactor, or focus sunlight on a target in a solar thermal power station, we generally produce steam, as ''secondary energy'', which we then use to drive turbines to drive generators which produce electricity which is delivered to consumers as ''final energy''. The distinction between secondary and final energy depends on what parts of a system one is analysing: for example electricity is never consumed directly, but is always converted to other forms of energy such as heat in a toaster, kettle or electric arc furnace, to light in lamps, or to mechanical work in electric vehicles (possibly via chemical energy in batteries). However for the purposes of planning sustainable energy systems, and factoring in {{CO2}} emissions, it is generally useful to consider electricity as a final energy form.<br />
<br />
Where this really matters is when we want to compare fuels for producing electricity. Power sources such as solar photovoltaic, wind, hydroelectric, wave and tide produce electricity directly, whereas coal, oil, gas, biomass, and nuclear produce heat. Electricity can be converted to heat, if that's what we want (for example for heating buildings, or in industrial processes), with practically 100% efficiency, but converting heat energy to electricity is, at best, only around 60% efficient, and often only half that.<br />
<br />
So if we know that a country consumes, say, a certain amount of coal, oil, or gas, resulting in a corresponding amount of {{CO2}} emissions, how much emission could be saved by replacing the fossil fuel with carbon free electricity depends on what the fuel is being used for. If it is used for heating then every unit of clean electricity will replace approximately the same amount of primary energy (since combustion fuels can be converted into heat very efficiently). But if the fossil fuel is being used to generate electricity then a carbon-free alternative will replace far more fossil fuel primary energy (and emissions) - how much more depending on the conversion efficiency. For example with a 33.3% conversion efficiency one unit of clean energy will replace 3 units of fossil fuel.<br />
<br />
In some statistical publications this sort of conversion is assumed, and factored in to allow meaningful comparison of, say, how much fossil fuel is saved by a given amount of hydro, wind or nuclear. This conversion is particularly likely to have been used when "tonnes of oil equivalent" ("toe"s) and their multiples (Mtoes, Gtoes) are quoted, for example in the BP Statistical Review (which uses a conversion factor of 38% - "the average for OECD thermal power generation").<br />
<br />
''See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy Primary energy] on Wikipedia''<br />
<br />
== Energy density and population density ==<br />
<br />
Different parts of the world have different densities of population, and those people use energy at different rates (so in cities in the developed, "first" world more energy is consumed in a given area than in rural areas in the developing world).<br />
<br />
Different sources of energy also have different densities: a 1GW coal, gas or nuclear power station may require a few tens of square kilometres (including the mines or wells needed to supply it) whereas to generate the same power from say, biomass, requires thousands of square kilometres to grow energy crops. When considering what sources of energy could power a given country or region we can compare the energy densities of supply and demand; [http://inference.org.uk/sustainable/data/powerd/MapOfWorld.html David MacKay's Map of the World] provides a convenient way of doing so visually for various countries and sources of low-carbon energy.<br />
<br />
[[File:MacKay PPPersonVsPDen2WA.eps.png]]<br />
<br />
== Capacity Factor ==<br />
<br />
Generators - whether fossil fuelled, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar etc - don't produce electricity (or other forms of useful energy) continuously, 24*7. All mechanical plants can break down, and most are stopped from time to time for inspection and maintenance. Most present day nuclear power stations have to be shut down for refuelling. And hydro, wind, solar, wave and tidal generators can only produce energy when there is the water, wind, sun, wave and tidal conditions they need. The percentage of a generator's maximum ("nameplate") output (or "installed capacity") which it achieves over a representative period in practice is known as its "capacity factor"; this is typically in the range 10-30% for solar, 20-40% for wind and around 90% for nuclear and other thermal power stations.<br />
<br />
Because of the significant difference in capacity factors between - in particular - solar and wind, and nuclear, it is misleading to compare installed capacities without compensating for capacity factors. (See e.g. [https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/no-chinas-wind-farms-dont-produce-more-electricity-than-americas-nuclear-power-plants/ this] and [https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/dont-plot-renewables-and-nuclear-capacity-on-the-same-graph/ this]).<br />
<br />
== Energy Return On Energy Invested ==<br />
<br />
Energy is needed to build, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission any power generating plant. As long as the plant generates more energy in its lifetime than it consumes it will provide a surplus for useful purposes. The greater the surplus the more it allows society to provide other goods and services – to grow food, to build, heat and cool homes and workplaces, run water and sewerage services, provide education, health care, transport, recreation etc. The ratio of energy generated to energy consumed is known as '''Energy Return On Energy Invested''' ('''EROEI''', or sometimes '''EROI''') and it is estimated that for a modern civilisation to function the EROEI of its energy supplies in aggregate must be in the region of 10 or more.<br />
<br />
Even an EROEI less than unity – a system that consumes more energy than it produces – may be useful if it provides services such as storing energy for use when and where it is needed but unavailable, such as to supply energy when demand temporarily exceeds supply, or to convey energy from fixed generators to electric vehicles. However the overall, aggregate, EROEI of the system of generators and storage systems must still be high enough to allow for a functioning civilisation.<br />
<br />
''For more see [[Energy Return On Energy Invested]]''<br />
<br />
== Carbon Intensity ==<br />
<br />
Also known as '''emission intensity''', '''life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions''' or '''levelized {{CO2}} emissions''', the carbon intensity of an energy source is the amount of {{CO2}} and equivalent greenhouse gases (e.g. Methane) it emits for each unit of energy (usually electricity) it produces. It is important that the emissions incurred in building and decommissioning generating plant, and mining, processing and transporting fuel, etc, are included, not just the emissions from burning fuel itself. Thus non-fossil fuel sources like wind, solar and nuclear do not have zero emissions (although their emissions are very low). Emissions from these non-generating processes may be subject to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_circle_and_vicious_circle virtuous circle] where these emissions become smaller as the carbon intensity of the electricity (and other fuels) they use decreases.<br />
<br />
<!-- ''For more see [[Carbon intensity]].'' --><br />
<br />
== Safety ==<br />
<br />
As with carbon intensity, the safety of an energy source must include all deaths and injuries involved in the technology e.g. from mining accidents, from air pollution produced by burning fuels, etc. <br />
<br />
This "Visual Capitalist" page [http://metals.visualcapitalist.com/safest-source-energy/ discusses] the relative safety of different sources of energy, which it presents in this graphic:<br />
<br />
[[File:Safest-energy-sources--VisualCapitalist.png|640px]]<br />
<br />
The [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ Visual Capitalist] site actually specialises in graphical visualisations of all sorts, from [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/online-dating-big-business/ the rise of online dating] to [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/climate-smart-mining-minerals-for-climate-action/ the raw materials demand for wind, solar and electric vehicles].<br />
<br />
''See also [[Safety of energy sources]] article.''<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== FURTHER READING ==<br />
<br />
<br />
[https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf Unsubsidized Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison] Lazard<br />
<br />
[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/store-electric-grid-030513.html Stanford scientists calculate the carbon footprint of grid-scale battery technologies]<br />
: Stanford scientists have developed a novel way to calculate the energetic cost of building large batteries and other storage technologies for the electrical grid.<br />
<br />
[http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1996/20110431.full.pdf+html Solar energy in the context of energy use, energy transportation and energy storage] David MacKay; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society<br />
: In a decarbonized world that is renewable-powered, the land area required to maintain today's British energy consumption would have to be similar to the area of Britain.<br />
<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=David_MacKay&diff=5527David MacKay2022-11-22T11:45:04Z<p>Sisussman: /* Obituaries */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:3]]<br />
[[Category:David MacKay]]<br />
[[File:MacKay cycling.jpg | right]]<br />
David MacKay was a professor of Physics at Cambridge University. He worked on machine learning, information theory and neural networks, developed<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_(software) Dasher] &ndash; an app allowing people with severe disabilities to type &ndash; and, in December 2008, self-published a book &ndash; <br />
[[Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air]] &ndash; in which he discussed, with worked-out [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ballpark_estimate ballpark] figures, how we use energy and how we could supply enough energy for our needs sustainably, without greenhouse gas emissions.<br />
<br />
In a short [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR8wRSp2IXs video] released in October 2009 MacKay discussed some of the myths about tackling climate change, such as action on plastic bags and phone chargers, and explained how much energy we use for heating and transport, how much energy we can save personally and what needs to be done by governments &ndash; and how little they were doing.<br />
<br />
In a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFosQtEqzSE talk] at Harvard in October 2010 MacKay gave a presentation of much of the contents of SEWTHA.<br />
<br />
In a March 2012 [https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables TEDx talk] MacKay talked about one of the concepts he had introduced in SEWTHA: energy density. Using a novel visualisation, and an elegant example of roadside biofuel plantations, he showed the physical limitations of various energy systems for different countries.<br />
<br />
SEWTHA was an improbable success: its first print run, which MacKay had paid £10K for out of his own pocket, sold out within days and the publishers reprinted it. It sparked a degree of public interest and discussion which was possibly instrumental in MacKay being appointed chief scientific officer of the (then) Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in September 2009. The Labour government at the time had just passed the <br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Act_2008 Climate Change Act of 2008] which mandated an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. (At the time this was thought to be sufficient to effectively mitigate climate change.)<br />
<br />
In April 2010, 6 months after starting work at DECC, MacKay gave a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwTiN9enSUY presentation] at CalTech (where he had done his PhD), which covered some of the ground covered in SEWTHA, and also introduced a calculator he was working on with DECC staff to allow "what-if" modelling of emissions reductions options. The [[DECC calculators | DECC 2050 Pathways calculator]] allows anyone to model emissions reductions pathways to attempt to reach the CCA 2008 80% by 2050 target. This was followed by a global calculator which included land use and lifestyle factors.<br />
<br />
In October 2015, shortly before the 21st Conference Of the Parties (COP 21) opened in Paris, MacKay published a paper <br />
"[http://www.nature.com/news/price-carbon-i-will-if-you-will-1.18538 Price carbon — I will if you will]" advocating using game theory in negotiations to ensure ambitious commitments by countries rather than rewarding "freeloading".<br />
<br />
However in July of 2015 MacKay had been diagnosed with an inoperable stomach cancer, and died in April 2016. He had recently married and he and his partner had two young children.<br />
<br />
Barely a month before he died colleagues at Cambridge University organised a symposium in his honour. David Speigelhalter's talk on risk is particularly worth watching, in the context of sustainability. MacKay himself delivered a talk on the mathematical properties of wooden toy train sets as finite state machines, and presented his work as the Brio Theorems.<br />
<br />
Less than two weeks before David died, his friend Mark Lynas recorded an [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCyidsxIDtQ interview] with him, in which he discussed the motivation for SEWTHA: a desire to apply reality checks to claims about energy, from which he personally learned about the limits of various sources. In the interview MacKay reiterated his insistence that we need plans that add up rather than wishful thinking, and that we need to have grown-up conversations about our options.<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== Climate science ==<br />
[http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/david-mackays-letter/ Here is a letter] MacKay wrote to climate denialist Matt Ridley, in November 2010 in his capacity as chief scientist at DECC, in response to an article Ridley wrote for The Times. In it MacKay discusses the nature of science and how it is communicated (often poorly), and the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. It is a example of the clarity and open-mindedness MacKay typically brought to all sorts of discussions on such issues.<br />
<br />
== SEWTHA ==<br />
[[File:MacKay lightbulbs.jpg | 420px | right]]<br />
[[File:SEWTHA.jpg | 240px | right]]<br />
<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/30/david-mckay-sustainable-energy Power to the people] Leo Hickman; Guardian; 30 Apr 2009<br />
{{Quote|How did a Cambridge physics professor come to write this year's must-read book about tackling our future energy needs? Leo Hickman went to meet him}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR8wRSp2IXs Cambridge Ideas - How Many Lightbulbs?] Cambridge University; Uploaded on 1 Oct 2009<br />
{{Quote|Cambridge University physicist, David Mackay, in a passionate, personal analysis of the energy crisis in the UK, in which he comes to some surprising conclusions about the way forward. The film is based on his new book Sustainable Energy without the hot air, in which Prof Mackay has calculated the numbers involved for the alternatives to fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwTiN9enSUY SEWTHA presentation at CalTech] 5 Apr 2010<br />
: "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" at Caltech by Prof David MacKay FRS, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009-2014). Close-captioning kindly provided by CMU. 5-April-2010. [https://octopus.caltech.edu/ccser/video/david-mackay/index.html original version]<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFosQtEqzSE Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air with David MacKay] Harvard University; (uploaded) 25 Oct 2010<br />
: David MacKay, Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK addressed energy issues at a macro and micro scale with the Harvard University community and beyond.<br />
<br />
[http://www.withouthotair.com/Wiki.html SEWTHA wiki]<br />
{{Quote|I have started an open-source wiki [currently taken down because of vandalism by hackers] that contains estimates, for every country, of sustainable energy options. I encourage contributors to make these estimates in the same style as the book. Rough, clear, and focussing on the big fish. Hopefully this will be a useful teaching resource, and a useful enhancement to the book itself. The wiki also has a page for extensions to each chapter of the book.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/apr/29/renewable-energy-david-mackay Think big on renewables scale] DavidMacKay; Guardian; 29 Apr 2009<br />
{{Quote|Current renewable installations can only deliver small amounts of energy; so when we build clean energy facilities, we have to think big, says David Mackay}}<br />
<br />
=== Criticisms & Attacks ===<br />
<br />
[http://markbrinkley.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/is-david-mackay-becoming-part-of.html Is David MacKay becoming part of the problem?] Mark Brinkley; blog; 11 Mar 2010 {{Quote|<br />
since he took the Queen's Shilling and became Chief Scientific Advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in September 2009, he has used his new found influence to promote air source heat pumps as the answer to our problems. "While in theory ground-source heat pumps might have better performance than air-source, because the ground temperature is usually closer than the air temperature to the indoor temperature, in practice an air-source heat pump might be the best and simplest choice," he writes in his book. And yet there a dozens of knowledgeable people out there who are distinctly queasy about air source heat pumps and think they may just make matters worse, }}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20161018192124/http://energynumbers.info/british-energy-demand-and-professor-mackays-estimate-of-it-an-explanation-of-the-differences British Energy Demand, and Professor MacKay’s estimate of it: an explanation of the differences] Andrew; Energy Numbers; 29 Jun 2010<br />
{{Quote|In “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air”, Professor MacKay compares an energy demand of 195 kWh/d with his calculated British renewable resource of 180 kWh/d, and comes to the conclusion that Britain cannot power itself from renewables. But in reality, British energy demand is 155 Mtoe/y. That’s the confirmed 2008 number, from the official Digest of UK Energy Statistics. (pdf, see Table 1.1, Final Consumption minus Non-energy use). That’s less than half the demand figure used in the book, when looking at whether his calculated renewable resource is enough. When we compare the renewable resource with the current demand figure, we see that the resource is more than double current energy demand: and that’s before any energy efficiency measures. And that makes a huge difference: by using the real figure for demand, we see that the UK renewable resource is much higher than current energy demand, so Britain could comfortably power itself from its own renewables.<br />
<br />
Comment on blog by Patrick Stewart; 4 Apr 2011<br />
{{qq|<br />
To be fair, that comparison on page 103 is between his two ballpark figures based on back of an envelope estimates. His actual conclusions on what is and isn’t possible are much later in the book (page 203 onwards), but as you seem to half-acknowledge above, on the following pages (104 and 107) he compares both of these estimates to official figures. He finds that he overestimated consumption by about 50% as compared to the same DTI figures you’re using except from 2006 rather than 2008; mostly by including the energy used to make things that isn’t expended in the UK. So pretty much your entire article is already in the book. He uses those corrected figures, with further reductions due to efficiency, in the rest of the book, including in his actual conclusions.<br />
<br />
What you haven’t written about at all is that he also finds that his total renewable energy potential estimates were very optimistic, about 3-10 times higher than similar estimates by several other groups.<br />
<br />
I don’t really know why I’m posting this, you’re clearly already aware of it, it’s in you graphs; I just can’t understand how you can complain about Mackay inflating his figures while also being aware that they’re lower than yours in his conclusions on pg 204. If you actually read the text on page 103 it clearly says “Now we will see if these estimates are correct”, not “so here I have conclusively proved renewables are insufficient”<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://thisbluerock.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/david-mackays-sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air-perhaps-a-little-hot-air-2/ David MacKay’s ‘Sustainable Energy – Without The Hot Air’… Perhaps A Little Hot Air?] anonymous author; This Blue Rock blog; 16 May 2011<br />
: anti-nuclear blog<br />
<br />
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b06z56m9 The Bottom Line] BBC, 4 Feb 2016<br />
: Solar Century salesman claims SEWTHA is out of date.<br />
: (MacKay responded that Laws of Physics haven't changed)<br />
<br />
=== TEDx talk ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables A Reality Check on Renewables] David MacKay; TEDx Warwick; Mar 2012<br />
{{Quote|How much land mass would renewables need to power a nation like the UK? An entire country's worth. In this pragmatic talk, David MacKay tours the basic mathematics that show worrying limitations on our sustainable energy options and explains why we should pursue them anyway.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5bVbfWuq-Q TEDxWarwick - David MacKay - How the Laws of Physics Constrain Our Sustainable Energy Options] Published on 22 Mar 2012<br />
{{Quote|Department of Climate Change Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor David MacKay FRS, is responsible for ensuring the best science and engineering advice underpins DECC's policy and decision-making. In addition to his role at DECC, David is Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Department of Physics at the University of Cambridge. He studied Natural Sciences at Cambridge and then obtained his PhD in Computation and Neural Systems at the California Institute of Technology. He returned to Cambridge as a Royal Society research fellow at Darwin College. He is internationally known for his research in machine learning, information theory, and communication systems, including the invention of Dasher -- a software interface that enables efficient communication in any language with any muscle. He has taught Physics in Cambridge since 1995 and he is a Fellow of the Royal Society. David is the author of the critically acclaimed book, Sustainable Energy — Without the Hot Air, which is intended to help people understand the numbers around sustainable energy.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables/transcript?language=en transcript]<br />
<br />
=== Solar ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/RSsolar.pdf Solar energy in the context of energy use, energy transportation, and energy storage] David J C MacKay FRS; Article submitted to Royal Society; 2013?<br />
{{Quote|Taking the United Kingdom as a case study, this paper describes current energy use and a range of sustainable energy options for the future, including solar power and other renewables. I focus on the the area involved in collecting, converting, and delivering sustainable energy, looking in particular detail at the potential role of solar power.}}<br />
<br />
== Carbon Pricing paper ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.nature.com/news/price-carbon-i-will-if-you-will-1.18538 Price carbon — I will if you will] David J. C. MacKay, Peter Cramton, Axel Ockenfels & Steven Stoft; Nature; 12 Oct 2015<br />
{{Quote|<br />
To forge a strong climate accord in Paris, nations must agree on a common goal in everyone's self-interest, say David J. C. MacKay and colleagues.<br />
<br />
Negotiations at the United Nations climate summit in Paris this December will adopt a 'pledge and review' approach to cutting global carbon emissions. Countries will promise to reduce their emissions by amounts that will be revised later. The narrative is that this will “enable an upward spiral of ambition over time”. History and the science of cooperation predict that quite the opposite will happen.<br />
<br />
Climate change is a serious challenge because the atmosphere gives a free ride to countries that emit. If some nations sit back and rely on others' efforts, the incentives for anyone to act are weakened. Review of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol at the 2012 UN climate meeting in Doha, for instance, resulted in Japan, Russia, Canada and New Zealand leaving the agreement, frustrating those who kept their promises.<br />
<br />
Success requires a common commitment, not a patchwork of individual ones. Negotiations need to be designed to realign self-interests and promote cooperation. A common commitment can assure participants that others will match their efforts and not free-ride. A strategy of “I will if you will” stabilizes higher levels of cooperation. It is the most robust pattern of cooperation seen in laboratory and field studies of situations open to free-riding2.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Obituaries and Tributes ==<br />
[https://hannahritchie.com/remembering-david-mackay/ Remembering David MacKay] Hannah Ritchie; 17 April 2016<br />
: ''Hannah is head of research at [https://ourworldindata.org/ Our World In Data]''<br />
<br />
[http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10069 Tributes paid to Professor Sir David MacKay] Jack Higgins; Varsity; 14 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quote|Cambridge scientist, noted for his work on climate change and praised as a “truly good man”, has passed away aged 48}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2016/04/15/professor-sir-david-mackay-physicist--obituary/ Professor Sir David MacKay, physicist – obituary] Daily Telegraph; 15 Apr 2016<br />
<br />
[http://www.marklynas.org/2016/04/david-mackay-taught-taught-us/ What David MacKay taught me, and taught us all] Mark Lynas; 15 Apr 2016<br />
<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/18/sir-david-mackay-obituary Sir David MacKay obituary] Mark Lynas; Guardian, 18 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quote|Cambridge physicist and government scientific adviser with a rational approach to the climate and energy debate}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.marklynas.org/2016/04/david-mackay-last-interview-tribute/ David MacKay – last interview and tribute] Mark Lynas; 27 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quoye|I had the honour of recording David MacKay’s last interview, on 3 April 2016. The idea was to present him with the Breakthrough Paradigm award because due to his illness he was unlikely to be able to travel to the awards ceremony in June 2016. However, we talked about a lot of different things, and together with David’s wife Ramesh I wanted this video and tribute to appear beforehand in full and unedited. David obviously knew he didn’t have long, and was consequently more forthright than he had perhaps been in previous interviews.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/idea-of-renewables-powering-uk-is-an-appalling-delusion-david-mackay Idea of renewables powering UK is an 'appalling delusion' – David MacKay] Damian Carrington; Guardian, 3 Mat 2016<br />
{{Quote|Country should focus on nuclear power and carbon capture technologies, former chief scientific adviser said in his final interview}}<br />
: ''Article based on last interview with Mark Lynas''<br />
<br />
[http://blog.mythic-beasts.com/2016/04/15/without-the-hot-air/ Without The Hot Air] pete; Mythic Beasts; 15 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quote|It’s with great sadness we learned of the death of Prof Sir David MacKay, FRS. He taught three of the Mythic Beasts founders information theory in 1999–2000, a fascinating and stunningly well-lectured course. The textbook Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms is freely available to download. Prof MacKay believed it was possible to make the world a better place.}}<br />
<br />
[http://occamstypewriter.org/athenedonald/2016/04/16/rip-sir-david-mackay/ RIP Sir David MacKay] Athene Donald; 16 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quote|Many people have been paying tribute to David MacKay, who died on Thursday, and I would like to add my own voice. He was an extraordinary man who contributed so much to physics and wider societal issues during his tragically short life. Although I never worked directly with him, nor even interacted with him much during the many years we worked in the same department (Cavendish Laboratory) in Cambridge, nevertheless somehow his character pervaded the world around him and made us all more aware of the importance of finding ways to communicate beyond our own communities.}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160422183913/https://eciu.net/blog/2016/a-tribute-to-former-decc-chief-scientific-adviser-sir-david-mackay A tribute to former DECC chief scientific adviser Sir David MacKay] Dr Emily Shuckburgh, Fellow, Darwin College, Cambridge; 16 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quote|He was an intellectual genius with immense humanity, a strong sense of social justice and an endearing sense of humour. He had once-in-a generation brilliance – a polymath whose works were seminal across an unimaginable span of subjects.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/tributes-following-the-death-of-professor-sir-david-mackay/ Tributes following the death of Professor Sir David MacKay] Science Media Centre; 15 Apr 2016<br />
: Martin Rees & others<br />
<br />
[http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/41948.html David MacKay] Matthew Garrett; 14 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quote|The first time I was paid to do software development came as something of a surprise to me. I was working as a sysadmin in a computational physics research group when a friend asked me if I'd be willing to talk to her PhD supervisor. I had nothing better to do, so said yes. And that was how I started the evening having dinner with David MacKay, and ended the evening better fed, a little drunker and having agreed in principle to be paid to write free software.}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160418144121/http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/ai-and-energy-expert-david-mckay-has.html AI and energy expert David McKay has died] Brian Wang; Next Big Future; 15 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quote|He also co-founded Transversal, a software company that specialises in search based on natural speech and wrote the textbook "Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms", available online for free.}}<br />
<br />
[http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=7a8fbaaf70aa4b22de1242958&id=3d8717407f David JC MacKay: a publisher's memories of a remarkable man and his remarkable book] Niall Mansfield, Publisher; UIT Cambridge Ltd.; 19 Apr 2016 (date of email)<br />
{{Quote|In 2008 UIT Cambridge published David MacKay's book, Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. I have worked with him as editor and publisher and known him as a friend in the eight years since then. These recollections are from my personal experience, so they focus on his book and related events.}}<br />
<br />
[https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/r-i-p-david-mackay-1967-2016/ R.I.P. David Mackay (1967-2016)] "Telescoper"; 15 Apr 2016<br />
: (By Peter Coles, Professor in, and Head of, the Department of Theoretical Physics at Maynooth University in Ireland)<br />
<br />
[http://scienceforsustainability.org/blog/2016/0414_MacKay/ A tribute on this site]<br />
<br />
==Further reading & resources ==<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay Wikipedia article]<br />
* [http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/index09.html Inference group web page] - with lots of useful links<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/davidjcmackay facebook page] - tributes<br />
* [https://twitter.com/davidjcmackay twitter] - last tweets<br />
* [http://withouthotair.blogspot.co.uk/ blog] - SEWTHA (and more)</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=About_Science_for_Sustainability&diff=5526About Science for Sustainability2022-11-22T11:44:07Z<p>Sisussman: /* Who is behind SfS? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Science for Sustainability is a project to share information and encourage discussion on the threats to human life on Earth and how we can tackle them, based on science and scientific evidence.<br />
<br />
{{BlockQuoteGrey|<br />
[[File:SEWTHA.jpg| 120px | left]]<br />
[[File:MacKay lightbulbs.jpg | 240px | right]]<br />
<br />
<br />
This project is inspired by the late Professor Sir [[David MacKay]]'s book "[[Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air]]" which made it possible for ordinary people to understand the challenges and possibilities of decarbonising our energy use, and threw down a challenge to everyone proposing ideas for doing so to come up with plans that add up &ndash; an idea that was quite radical at the time<ref><br />
And, sadly, still does seems to be, to some.<br />
</ref>.<br />
{{clear}} }}<br />
<br />
== Wikis and 'pedias ==<br />
<br />
Science for Sustainability isn't trying to be some sort of Wikipedia. It looks like Wikipedia because it runs on the same <br />
[https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki] software that Wikipedia uses. <br />
Like Wikipedia it tries to present its content with a <br />
"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point Of View]" and base it on <br />
"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Reliable Sources]", but it is different in that whilst Wikipedia prohibits <br />
"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Original Research]"<br />
SfS does not, provided it is transparent.<br />
<br />
== Who is behind SfS? ==<br />
<br />
The project is the creation of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensioner old], <br />
[http://queerdictionary.blogspot.com/2014/09/definition-of-cishet.html cishet], white, man living in the <br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Valley Thames Valley] area of England, whose ambition is for his kids to get old too.<br />
<br />
It is run on a shoe-string: all expenses come out of SfS's pocket: no <br />
[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit shill bucks] have been solicited or forthcoming, <br />
and the project has no financial interest in anything except the continuation and flourishing of global human civilisation and the planetary ecosystems on which we depend.<br />
<br />
== Getting in touch ==<br />
<br />
Feedback is most welcome, and help even more so: reviewing existing pages for accuracy, editing existing/creating new pages, suggesting topics and/or sources to include, sysadmin etc.<br />
<br />
You can contact the project<ref><br />
Some rather contorted language is used throughout this site to avoid having to choose between saying either "I" or "we". <br />
Whilst at the time of writing everything here is the work of the founder, it is hoped that in due course there will be a team working on it <br />
(even [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales Jimmy Wales] had to start somewhere!)<br />
and it would be nice not to have to go round changing singular pronouns to plural all over the place.<br />
</ref><br />
through the [https://scienceforsustainability/contact/ contact page]<br />
<br />
There is also a Science for Sustainability<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/ScienceForSustainability/ Facebook page] (which is for announcements and discussions about this wiki and its articles), and a<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability Facebook group] (which is for discussions of general issues of science and sustainability).<ref><br />
The difference between Facebook pages and groups seems to be that in a group all members are equally able to post new threads, and comment on each others' posts, whilst in pages (which can also, perhaps misleadingly, be known as communities) it is generally the page owner who creates new posts (although people who follow the page can comment on them).<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
&mdash; SfS<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<references /></div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=AGW_denial&diff=5525AGW denial2022-11-15T14:13:37Z<p>Sisussman: /* Bjorn Lomborg */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:2]]<br />
[[Category: AGW denial]]<br />
<br />
Almost all scientific experts agree that the world's climate is changing because of human activities, and that the effects of changing climate pose many threats to humans and other life. Experts disagree only about some details of the changes occurring now and in the future and their exact consequences.<br />
<br />
But there are many groups and individuals who deny that the climate is changing significantly, deny that it is changing due to human activities, or deny that the consequences for humans are significant. They assert that the scientific experts are either incompetent or corrupt (or both). Some of these groups and individuals are purely ideologically driven whilst some are supported by interests (such as the fossil fuel industry) who see themselves as having much to lose from effective action on climate change (such as a move away from fossil fuels).<br />
<br />
There are also groups and individuals setting out to counter AGW denialist claims with scientifically-accurate information, and some (such as [https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database desmog blog's denier database]) identifying denialists and their affliations.<br />
<br />
However the beliefs of committed denialists can be firmly entrenched and attempting to change them by providing more accurate information may be ineffective or even counter-productive. The field of [[Science#communication|science communication]] studies and attempts to provide solutions for this problem.<br />
<br />
== General ==<br />
[https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database Global Warming Disinformation Database] desmog blog<br />
: search and browse our extensive research on the individuals and organizations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight global warming.<br />
<br />
[http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/ If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong] John Timmer; Ars Technica; 28 Feb 2011<br />
: One of the more unfortunate memes that makes an appearance whenever climate science is discussed is the accusation that, by hyping their results, climate scientists are ensuring themselves steady paychecks, and may even be enriching themselves. So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science?<br />
<br />
[http://grist.org/news/scientists-try-to-replicate-climate-denier-findings-and-fail/ Scientists try to replicate climate denier findings and fail] Suzanne Jacobs; Grist; 26 Aug 2015<br />
: A group of researchers just tried to replicate 38 peer-reviewed studies that support skeptic talking points, and surprise! They ran into some trouble.<br />
<br />
: In a paper published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, the researchers reported a number of problems with the 38 studies, including questionable physics and incomplete data sets. They also found that some of the studies were published in peer-reviewed journals that didn’t specialize in climate science, and therefore probably didn’t have the proper experts looking over the work.<br />
<br />
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5 Learning from mistakes in climate research] Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, John Cook; Theoretical and Applied Climatology; 20 Aug 2015<br />
: Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.<br />
<br />
[http://climatefeedback.org/ Climate Feedback]<br />
: a site providing expert scientific review of climate stories in media<br />
<br />
[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/ Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement] Colin Schultz; Smithsonian Magazine; 23 Dec 2013<br />
: There is a very well-funded, well-orchestrated climate change-denial movement, one funded by powerful people with very deep pockets. In a new and incredibly thorough study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle took a deep dive into the financial structure of the climate deniers, to see who is holding the purse strings.<br />
<br />
== Organisations ==<br />
<br />
=== Global Warming Policy Foundation / Forum ===<br />
<br />
Climate denialist organisation, registered in the UK as an educational charity but engaging in political lobbying, founded by former Conservative politician and Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord, Nigel Lawson<br />
<br />
[http://www.thegwpf.com/ GWPF website]<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation Wikipedia]<br />
: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.<br />
<br />
: It promotes climate change denial.[5][6] In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts.<br />
<br />
[https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)] deSmog blog<br />
<br />
[https://www.desmog.uk/search/google/gwpf Search GWPF on deSmog blog]<br />
<br />
[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation GWPF on SourceWatch]<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/27/tory-donor-climate-sceptic-thinktank Michael Hintze revealed as funder of Lord Lawson's climate thinktank] Graham Readfearn, Leo Hickman and Rupert Neate; The Guardian; 27 Mar 2012<br />
: Michael Hintze, a leading Conservative party donor who runs the £5bn hedge fund CQS, has emerged as a financial backer of the climate sceptic thinktank founded by former chancellor, Lord Nigel Lawson.<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation revealed] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 2 Sep 2014<br />
: Neil Record and Nigel Vinson confirm their donations, and are both linked to thinktank that took funds from oil companies<br />
<br />
: Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation have been revealed. This is the first time anyone financing the group has confirmed their contributions. Both are linked to a free-market thinktank, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), which has admitted taking funding from fossil fuel companies and has also argued against climate change mitigation.<br />
<br />
: Lord Lawson has steadfastly refused to name the funders of the Global Warming Policy Foundation since its inception in 2009, stating only that none have significant fossil fuel interests. The GWPF has become the most prominent climate sceptic group in the UK, but critics of the GWPF argue that funders’ names should be made public in the interest of transparency.<br />
<br />
: The names were uncovered by the investigative blog Desmog UK. Neil Record, the founding chairman of a currency management company Record and an IEA trustee, confirmed he has given money to the GWPF but said the amount was a “private matter”. Record gave the IEA £36,000 to support a seminar featuring Lawson in November 2009 and on the same day Lawson launched the GWPF. Record told the Guardian: “I personally regard the continuing contribution of the GWPF to the climate change debate as very positive in assisting balance and rationality in this contentious area.”<br />
<br />
=== Breitbart ===<br />
<br />
[https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans] The Weather Channel; 9 Dec 2016 ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M YouTube])<br />
: Global warming is not expected to end anytime soon, despite what Breitbart.com wrote in [http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/ an article published last week].<br />
<br />
: Though we would prefer to focus on our usual coverage of weather and climate science, in this case we felt it important to add our two cents — especially because a video clip from weather.com (La Niña in Pacific Affects Weather in New England) was prominently featured at the top of the Breitbart article. Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it. The Breitbart article – a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case – includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare." In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and will keep doing so.<br />
<br />
=== Facebook ===<br />
<br />
The [https://www.facebook.com/groups/climate.discussion/ Climate Change Discussion] group is a common source of denialist posts and contributors.<br />
<br />
== People ==<br />
<br />
=== Mike Adams ===<br />
[https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/mike-adams-natural-news-everyones-favorite-uber-quack-1-anti-science-website/ Mike Adams: Natural News, “everyone’s favorite über-quack #1 anti-science website”] Genetic Literacy Project; 4 Jan 2019<br />
: Adams conspiracy theories are not limited to GMOs, but include anti-vaccine, Obama ‘birther,’ HIV/AIDS denial and even Global Warming denialism for which Science Blogs writer Mark Hoofnagle noted, Adams “anti-government conspiratorial tendencies with his overriding naturalistic fantasy to decide the government (and Al Gore) are conspiring to destroy our power infrastructure with carbon taxes…”<br />
<br />
=== Christopher Booker ===<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation] Christopher Booker; Daily Telegraph; 28 Nov 2009<br />
: Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.<br />
<br />
: Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy Climategate] stolen emails.<br />
<br />
: ''Also carried by [http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation/ InfoWars]''<br />
<br />
=== Paul Homewood ===<br />
<br />
Homewood is a retired accountant<ref><br />
''"Last month, the [Global Warming Policy] Foundation published an inaccurate and misleading pamphlet on ‘Tropical hurricanes in the age of global warming’. Written by Paul Homewood, a retired accountant ..."''<br />
in<br />
"[http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-trying-to-fool-the-public-again-about-extreme-weather/ Climate change deniers trying to fool the public again about extreme weather]" by Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, on 15th Feb 2019<br />
</ref><br />
who writes<ref><br />
''"Paul Homewood, author of a blog in a niche corner of the Denier-Gammon bloggersphere Not a Lot of People Know That"''<br />
in "[https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/08/21/thatcher-s-disputed-climate-legacy-and-death-british-climate-denial Comment: Thatcher's Disputed Legacy and the Death of British Climate Science Denial]" by Mike Small in deSmog blog on 21 Aug 2018<br />
</ref> the climate denialist [https://donotlink.it/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/ Not A Lot Of People Know That] blog.<br />
<br />
Homewood is credited with providing arguments used by Christopher Booker<ref><br />
''"Interestingly, in his final column, Booker failed to mention that many of his arguments were based on the work of climate science denier blogger Paul Homewood."''<br />
in<br />
[https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/04/01/and-so-ends-30-years-climate-science-denial-christopher-booker-has-written-his-last-telegraph-column And So Ends 30 Years of Climate Science Denial — Christopher Booker Has Written His Last Telegraph Column] by Mat Hope in deSmog blog on 1 April 2019<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
=== Bjorn Lomborg ===<br />
<br />
See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg Wikipedia] article.<br />
<br />
[[File:Bjorn Lomborg Sea Level Rise.png | right | 600px]]<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/no-one-ever-says-it-but-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-a-go/ No one ever says it, but in many ways global warming will be a good thing] Bjorn Lomborg; Daily Telegraph; 5 May 2016<br />
{{q|Last week, a study in the prestigious journal Nature revealed just how much CO₂ increases have greened the Earth over the past three decades. Because CO₂ acts as a fertilizer, as much as half of all vegetated land is persistently greener today. This ought to be a cause for great joy. Instead, the BBC focused on warning that the paper shouldn’t make us stop worrying about global warming, with threats like melting glaciers and more severe tropical storms. Many other major news outlets did not even report on the study.}}<br />
<br />
[http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-telegraph-bjorn-lomborg-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-good-thing/ Analysis of Bjorn Lomborg’s “…in many ways global warming will be a good thing”] Climate Feedback<br />
{{q|14 scientists analyzed the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’ to 'very low'.}}<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
=== Matt Ridley ===<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley wikipedia]<br />
<br />
[https://www.desmogblog.com/matt-ridley deSmog Blog]<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20151204004641/http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/analysis-of-matt-ridley-benny-peiser-your-complete-guide-to-the-climate-debate/ Analysis of Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser’s “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate”] Climate Feedback (via Internet Archive); 27 Nov 2015<br />
: The opinion piece in the WSJ by Matt Ridley & Benny Peiser contains numerous false statements, cherry-picked evidence, and misleading assertions about climate science. It attempts to surround the hard facts about climate change with clouds of uncertainty, even though these facts are agreed to by the scientific academies of every major country in the world and the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.<br />
<br />
: Facts and/or studies are cherry picked or placed out of context to support the main claim that global warming is not as bad as we feared. For example the assertion that 1.5C of warming would be “beneficial” is one that very few scientists or economists agree with, and is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of evidence in the IPCC’s reports showing that the adverse impacts from climate change will far outweigh the benefits from carbon-dioxide induced greening and other heat-related effects.<br />
<br />
: ''WSJ article is paywalled''<br />
<br />
[https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-respond-to-matt-ridleys-climate-change-claims Scientists respond to Matt Ridley’s climate change claims] Carbon Brief; 7 Dec 2015<br />
: Ridley has [] gained prominence for writing regularly about climate change, describing himself as a “lukewarmer“.<br />
<br />
: As part of a recent three-part documentary series called Changing Climate for BBC Radio 4, Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s environment analyst, interviewed Matt Ridley, among a number of other people. The Open University has published many of the interviews online, both as recordings and full transcripts.<br />
<br />
: The Harrabin-Ridley transcript is arguably the most in-depth interview with the peer in the public domain on the topics of climate change and energy. Ridley makes a wide range of claims throughout, touching on subjects from ocean acidification and climate sensitivity through to energy subsidies and the “benefits” of global warming.<br />
<br />
: Recognising Ridley’s media prominence and influence with regard to climate change, Carbon Brief recently sent a copy of the transcript to various scientists and energy policy experts and asked them to respond to his claims by annotating the document with their comments and observations.<br />
<br />
: The document below includes responses from the following (in alphabetical order):<br />
<br />
* Prof Richard Allan, professor of climate science at the University of Reading<br />
* Prof Richard Betts, head of climate impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre<br />
* Prof Piers Forster, professor of physical climate change at the University of Leeds<br />
* Prof Jean-Pierre Gattuso, research professor at the Université Pierre-et-Marie Curie’s Laboratoire d’Océanographie de Villefranche<br />
* Prof Sir Andy Haines, professor of public health and primary care at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine<br />
* Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute<br />
* Dr Chris Hope, reader in policy modelling at the University of Cambridge<br />
* Dr Sari Kovatz, director of the National Institute for Health Research’s Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Change and Health<br />
* Prof Ranga Myneni, professor at the Boston University’s department of earth and environment<br />
* Dr Gavin A Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies<br />
* Prof Jim Watson, professor of energy policy at Sussex University’s Science Policy Research Unit<br />
<br />
[https://www.scribd.com/document/292508993/Matt-Ridley-interviewed-by-Roger-Harrabin Matt Ridley interview] scribd<br />
: ''part of the'' Carbon Brief page'', which can be viewed separately on scribd''<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/21/matt-ridley-wants-to-gamble-earths-future-because-wont-learn-from-past Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth’s future because he won’t learn from the past] Dana Nuccitelli; The Guardian; 21 Jan 2015<br />
: ... writer Matt Ridley ... complaining, “Rather than attack my arguments, my critics like to attack my motives.” That’s undoubtedly because when an individual keeps repeating the same myths over and over again, people eventually grow tired of debunking those myths and naturally question the motives of the individual who keeps making them.<br />
<br />
: Let’s look at a few examples from Ridley’s latest article. ...<br />
<br />
=== James Taylor ===<br />
==== Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis ====<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis] [[James Taylor]]; Forbes; 13 Feb 2013<br />
: Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.<br />
<br />
: ''relies on'':<br />
<br />
[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317 Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change] Lianne M. Lefsrud, Renate E. Meyer; Organisational Studies; 19 Nov 2012<br />
: ''examines attitudes of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists in the Canadian petroleum industry''<br />
<br />
: We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action<br />
<br />
[http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/ James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees] Climate Science Watch; 14 Feb 2013<br />
: In a Forbes op-ed, James Taylor takes a study that prominently reveals the anti-science influence of oil and gas companies, and spins it to suggest that serious, substantive disagreement exists among relevant scientists on climate change. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the very study he cites, as well as numerous other studies that have surveyed climate scientists.<br />
<br />
==== NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat ====<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/ Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat] James Taylor; Forbes; 19 May 2015<br />
: Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.<br />
<br />
(Also at [http://climatechangedispatch.com/updated-nasa-data-global-warming-not-causing-any-polar-ice-retreat/ Climate Change Dispatch])<br />
<br />
[https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlchapma/Forbes.article.response.pdf A Response to Forbes.com article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/] [http://cs.illinois.edu/directory/profile/wlchapma William Chapman]; University of Illinois, Urbana<br />
<br />
[http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/forbes-james-taylor-updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/ Analysis of “Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”] Climate Feedback; <br />
: Nine scientists analyzed the article and estimated that its overall scientific credibility was very low<br />
<br />
: This article has been read more than 660,000 times since it was published in May, making it Forbes’s most read article on climate in 2015. So how accurate was it?<br />
<br />
: Not accurate at all. According to the reviewers, this article contains numerous factual errors and flawed logic. The author fails to distinguish between sea and land ice, and the Arctic and Antarctic. Taylor’s conclusion, which contradicts the observed signal of global warming on polar ice, is misleading.<br />
<br />
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/ This is climate skeptics’ latest argument about melting polar ice — and why it’s wrong] Chris Mooney; Washington Post; 27 May 2015<br />
: I came across numerous citations of a much-read article at Forbes by James Taylor, titled “Updated NASA Data: Global warming not causing any polar ice retreat.”<br />
<br />
: There are many problems with this claim. In effect — and as we’ll see — Taylor is falling into a long climate “skeptic” tradition of pointing toward growing sea ice around Antarctica, and thereby suggesting that this trend undermines broader concerns about polar ice melt, or climate change in general. It doesn’t. <br />
<br />
[http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/how-forbes-got-it-wrong-the-real-climate-change-data-from-nasa/ How Forbes got it wrong: The real climate change data from NASA] The Manufacturer; 2 Jun 2015<br />
: A new Forbes article which claimed that polar ice coverage has not changed since 1979 has been revealed to be based off misrepresented data.<br />
<br />
: The problem is however, it did no such thing.<br />
<br />
: The Manufacturer contacted NASA for comment on the article, which has been viewed more than 280,000 times. But the organisation flatly denied that it was the source of the “new data”.<br />
<br />
: “The article does not reference any NASA data source. The article links to a single graph posted on a University of Illinois website to support its claims. NASA has not released any new or updated data that supports these claims,” stated Stephen Cole, a Communications Officer from NASA.<br />
<br />
: James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article, who also works for a conservative think-tank called the Heartland Institute, appears to have invented the NASA connection for this data in an attempt to give it authenticity.<br />
<br />
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/05/26/climate_change_denying_reality_is_a_threat_to_our_nation.html Climate Change Denial Is a Threat to National Security] Phil Plait; Bad Astronomy; 26 May 2016<br />
: ...look at an op-ed in Forbes magazine written by Heartland Institute’s James Taylor (yes, that Heartland Institute). Taylor has a history of cherry-picking and distorting results from real climate scientists, and he’s doing the same thing here.<br />
<br />
: In the op-ed, he claims that global warming has not caused global sea ice retreat. This is a gross distortion of reality. The truth is that in the arctic we’re seeing record low levels of sea ice year after year, including just this year, when in March the North Pole saw the lowest maximum ice extent on record.<br />
<br />
=== Willie Soon ===<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry] Suzanne Goldenberg; Guardian; 21 Feb 2015<br />
: A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show. Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.<br />
<br />
=== Euan Mearns ===<br />
''All articles by Euan Mearns are in his Energy Matters blog unless otherwise stated.''<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-cosmogenic-isotope-record-and-the-role-of-the-sun-in-shaping-earths-climate/ The Cosmogenic Isotope Record and the Role of The Sun in Shaping Earth’s Climate] 22 Jan 2018<br />
: The defining division between “climate sceptics” and “greenhouse gas warmists” is the role of the Sun in causing Earth’s climate to oscillate. The anecdotal evidence for a significant solar role comes from the observation that during the Little Ice Age (LIA) sunspots were virtually absent from the Sun for a few decades – and in Europe at least it was periodically very cold. The HARD scientific evidence that backs this up comes from cosmogenic isotope variations that provide a record of solar geomagentic activity. It is surprising therefore that The Geological Society of London’s (GSL) 2010 position statement on climate change does not mention the incredible cosmogenic isotope record at all.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/cosmic-rays-magnetic-fields-and-climate-change/ Cosmic Rays, Magnetic Fields and Climate Change] 29 Jan 2018<br />
: In my recent post on The Cosmogenic Isotope Record and the Role of The Sun in Shaping Earth’s Climate an interesting discussion developed in comments where there was a fair amount of disagreement among my sceptical colleagues. A few days later, retired Apollo astronaut Phil Chapman sent me this article which lays some of the doubts to rest. Phil never got to fly in space but was mission Scientist on Apollo 14. It is not every day I get the opportunity to publish an article from such a pre-eminent scientist.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-death-of-sunspot-cycle-24-huge-snow-and-record-cold/ The Death of Sunspot Cycle 24, Huge Snow and Record Cold] 31 Jan 2018<br />
: My friend Alex is in Chamonix in the shadow of Mont Blanc in the French Alps. He sent some very snowy pics and mentioned that it was fair dinging down. The most snow since 2010. Knowing that sunspot cycle 24 was well-advanced I did some checking and came across a web site called Weather to Ski that had some amazing pics of big snow. One picture in particular caught my attention. See inset and below the fold.<br />
<br />
: It looks like the snow in this drift is ~ 8m deep. And this is in the valley, not in the high basins where the snow fields that feed the glaciers lie. Now it’s obviously far too early to begin to draw any conclusions. But IF we get a run of 3 or 4 winters that dump this much snow, it is not inconceivable for me to imagine Alpine glaciers once again beginning to advance. I’m totally unsure how long it takes for pressure in the glacier source to feed through to advance of the snout.<br />
<br />
: So what is going on? We’ve been told by climate scientists that snow would become a thing of the past. We’ve also been told that global warming might lead to more snow and less snow. And we’ve been told that warming might even lead to cooling. The competing theory to the CO2 greenhouse is that the Sun has a prominent role in modulating Earth’s climate that was so eloquently described by Phil Chapman in his post earlier this week. This theory simply observes a strong connection between a weak solar wind (that is expressed by low sunspot numbers) and cold, snowy winters in the N hemisphere. Uniquely, most of those who argue for a strong solar influence also acknowledge the overprint of anthropogenic CO2. The IPCC effectively sets the Sun to zero. The Sun is entering a grand solar minimum already christened the Eddy Minimum by the solar physics community.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-week-of-the-beast-unplugged/ The Week of The Beast Unplugged] 15 Mar 2018<br />
: '''Sudden Stratospheric Warming'''<br />
: Before looking at the electricity data I want to dwell on the cause of The Beast which comes down to a process called Sudden Stratospheric Warming. This UK Met Office link has this to say (note there is also a good vid).<br />
<br />
:: ''The term SSW refers to what we observe – rapid warming (up to about 50 °C in just a couple of days) in the stratosphere, between 10 km and 50 km up.<br />
''<br />
:: ''Jet streams high up in our atmosphere, in both the northern and southern hemisphere, circumnavigate the Earth from west to east. One of these, the Polar Night Jet, circles the Arctic.''<br />
<br />
:: ''Sometimes the usual westerly flow can be disrupted by natural weather patterns or disturbances in the lower part of the atmosphere, such as a large area of high pressure in the northern hemisphere. This causes the Polar Jet to wobble and these wobbles, or waves, break just like waves on the beach. When they break they can be strong enough to weaken or even reverse the westerly winds and swing them to easterlies. As this happens, air in the stratosphere starts to collapse in to the polar cap and compress. As it compresses it warms, hence the stratospheric warming.<br />
''<br />
: This is the official view that needs to be contrasted with the man-made climate change drivel emanating from factions of the climate change community.<br />
<br />
== Legal harassment of climate scientists ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/07/climate-scientists-are-under-attack-from-frivolous-lawsuits Climate scientists are under attack from frivolous lawsuits] Lauren Kurtz; Guardian; 7 Jul 2016<br />
: Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is forced to defend climate scientists against constant frivolous lawsuits. On June 14th, an Arizona court ruled that thousands of emails from two prominent climate scientists must be turned over to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E), a group that disputes the 97% expert consensus on human-caused climate change and argues against action to confront it. E&E and its attorneys are funded by Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources, coal corporations with billions of dollars in revenue.<br />
<br />
== Examples ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.dailywire.com/news/13817/scientists-we-know-what-really-causes-climate-james-barrett Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)] James Barrett; The Daily Wire; 24 Feb 2017<br />
: A new study produced by a University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscientist and Northwestern astrophysicist presents an explanation of the fluctuations of the earth's temperatures that global warming alarmists are going to make sure to bury: The cycle of changes in the climate over the millennia is a result of changes in the amount of solar radiation, in part caused by small changes in the orbits of Earth and Mars. <br />
<br />
''Cites:''<br />
<br />
[http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/ From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’] Terry Devitt; University of Wisconsin-Madison news; 22 Feb 2017<br />
: The variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes in our planet’s climate — changes that can be reflected in the rocks that record Earth’s history<br />
: ''(The Daily Wire article actually quotes this)''<br />
<br />
''Based on paper:''<br />
<br />
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7642/full/nature21364.html A simple rule to determine which insolation cycles lead to interglacials] P. C. Tzedakis, M. Crucifix, T. Mitsui, E. W. Wolff; Nature; 23 Feb 2017<br />
: The pacing of glacial–interglacial cycles during the Quaternary period (the past 2.6 million years) is attributed to astronomically driven changes in high-latitude insolation. However, it has not been clear how astronomical forcing translates into the observed sequence of interglacials. Here we show that before one million years ago interglacials occurred when the energy related to summer insolation exceeded a simple threshold, about every 41,000 years. Over the past one million years, fewer of these insolation peaks resulted in deglaciation (that is, more insolation peaks were ‘skipped’), implying that the energy threshold for deglaciation had risen, which led to longer glacials. However, as a glacial lengthens, the energy needed for deglaciation decreases. A statistical model that combines these observations correctly predicts every complete deglaciation of the past million years and shows that the sequence of interglacials that has occurred is one of a small set of possibilities. The model accounts for the dominance of obliquity-paced glacial–interglacial cycles early in the Quaternary and for the change in their frequency about one million years ago. We propose that the appearance of larger ice sheets over the past million years was a consequence of an increase in the deglaciation threshold and in the number of skipped insolation peaks.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/ Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?] Snopes<br />
: A blog post, even if you like it and it is presented in downloadable PDF form, is not a peer-reviewed study.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07042017/heartland-institute-climate-change-denial-science-education Educators Decry Conservative Group's Climate 'Propaganda' Sent to Schoolteachers] Phil McKenna; Inside Climate News; 10 Apr 2017<br />
: Teaching material sent by Heartland Institute to thousands of teachers denies climate science, aims to teach a 'debate.'<br />
<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=AGW_denial&diff=5524AGW denial2022-11-15T12:28:39Z<p>Sisussman: /* Bjorn Lomborg */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:2]]<br />
[[Category: AGW denial]]<br />
<br />
Almost all scientific experts agree that the world's climate is changing because of human activities, and that the effects of changing climate pose many threats to humans and other life. Experts disagree only about some details of the changes occurring now and in the future and their exact consequences.<br />
<br />
But there are many groups and individuals who deny that the climate is changing significantly, deny that it is changing due to human activities, or deny that the consequences for humans are significant. They assert that the scientific experts are either incompetent or corrupt (or both). Some of these groups and individuals are purely ideologically driven whilst some are supported by interests (such as the fossil fuel industry) who see themselves as having much to lose from effective action on climate change (such as a move away from fossil fuels).<br />
<br />
There are also groups and individuals setting out to counter AGW denialist claims with scientifically-accurate information, and some (such as [https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database desmog blog's denier database]) identifying denialists and their affliations.<br />
<br />
However the beliefs of committed denialists can be firmly entrenched and attempting to change them by providing more accurate information may be ineffective or even counter-productive. The field of [[Science#communication|science communication]] studies and attempts to provide solutions for this problem.<br />
<br />
== General ==<br />
[https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database Global Warming Disinformation Database] desmog blog<br />
: search and browse our extensive research on the individuals and organizations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight global warming.<br />
<br />
[http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/ If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong] John Timmer; Ars Technica; 28 Feb 2011<br />
: One of the more unfortunate memes that makes an appearance whenever climate science is discussed is the accusation that, by hyping their results, climate scientists are ensuring themselves steady paychecks, and may even be enriching themselves. So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science?<br />
<br />
[http://grist.org/news/scientists-try-to-replicate-climate-denier-findings-and-fail/ Scientists try to replicate climate denier findings and fail] Suzanne Jacobs; Grist; 26 Aug 2015<br />
: A group of researchers just tried to replicate 38 peer-reviewed studies that support skeptic talking points, and surprise! They ran into some trouble.<br />
<br />
: In a paper published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, the researchers reported a number of problems with the 38 studies, including questionable physics and incomplete data sets. They also found that some of the studies were published in peer-reviewed journals that didn’t specialize in climate science, and therefore probably didn’t have the proper experts looking over the work.<br />
<br />
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5 Learning from mistakes in climate research] Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, John Cook; Theoretical and Applied Climatology; 20 Aug 2015<br />
: Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.<br />
<br />
[http://climatefeedback.org/ Climate Feedback]<br />
: a site providing expert scientific review of climate stories in media<br />
<br />
[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/ Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement] Colin Schultz; Smithsonian Magazine; 23 Dec 2013<br />
: There is a very well-funded, well-orchestrated climate change-denial movement, one funded by powerful people with very deep pockets. In a new and incredibly thorough study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle took a deep dive into the financial structure of the climate deniers, to see who is holding the purse strings.<br />
<br />
== Organisations ==<br />
<br />
=== Global Warming Policy Foundation / Forum ===<br />
<br />
Climate denialist organisation, registered in the UK as an educational charity but engaging in political lobbying, founded by former Conservative politician and Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord, Nigel Lawson<br />
<br />
[http://www.thegwpf.com/ GWPF website]<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation Wikipedia]<br />
: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.<br />
<br />
: It promotes climate change denial.[5][6] In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts.<br />
<br />
[https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)] deSmog blog<br />
<br />
[https://www.desmog.uk/search/google/gwpf Search GWPF on deSmog blog]<br />
<br />
[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation GWPF on SourceWatch]<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/27/tory-donor-climate-sceptic-thinktank Michael Hintze revealed as funder of Lord Lawson's climate thinktank] Graham Readfearn, Leo Hickman and Rupert Neate; The Guardian; 27 Mar 2012<br />
: Michael Hintze, a leading Conservative party donor who runs the £5bn hedge fund CQS, has emerged as a financial backer of the climate sceptic thinktank founded by former chancellor, Lord Nigel Lawson.<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation revealed] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 2 Sep 2014<br />
: Neil Record and Nigel Vinson confirm their donations, and are both linked to thinktank that took funds from oil companies<br />
<br />
: Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation have been revealed. This is the first time anyone financing the group has confirmed their contributions. Both are linked to a free-market thinktank, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), which has admitted taking funding from fossil fuel companies and has also argued against climate change mitigation.<br />
<br />
: Lord Lawson has steadfastly refused to name the funders of the Global Warming Policy Foundation since its inception in 2009, stating only that none have significant fossil fuel interests. The GWPF has become the most prominent climate sceptic group in the UK, but critics of the GWPF argue that funders’ names should be made public in the interest of transparency.<br />
<br />
: The names were uncovered by the investigative blog Desmog UK. Neil Record, the founding chairman of a currency management company Record and an IEA trustee, confirmed he has given money to the GWPF but said the amount was a “private matter”. Record gave the IEA £36,000 to support a seminar featuring Lawson in November 2009 and on the same day Lawson launched the GWPF. Record told the Guardian: “I personally regard the continuing contribution of the GWPF to the climate change debate as very positive in assisting balance and rationality in this contentious area.”<br />
<br />
=== Breitbart ===<br />
<br />
[https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans] The Weather Channel; 9 Dec 2016 ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M YouTube])<br />
: Global warming is not expected to end anytime soon, despite what Breitbart.com wrote in [http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/ an article published last week].<br />
<br />
: Though we would prefer to focus on our usual coverage of weather and climate science, in this case we felt it important to add our two cents — especially because a video clip from weather.com (La Niña in Pacific Affects Weather in New England) was prominently featured at the top of the Breitbart article. Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it. The Breitbart article – a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case – includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare." In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and will keep doing so.<br />
<br />
=== Facebook ===<br />
<br />
The [https://www.facebook.com/groups/climate.discussion/ Climate Change Discussion] group is a common source of denialist posts and contributors.<br />
<br />
== People ==<br />
<br />
=== Mike Adams ===<br />
[https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/mike-adams-natural-news-everyones-favorite-uber-quack-1-anti-science-website/ Mike Adams: Natural News, “everyone’s favorite über-quack #1 anti-science website”] Genetic Literacy Project; 4 Jan 2019<br />
: Adams conspiracy theories are not limited to GMOs, but include anti-vaccine, Obama ‘birther,’ HIV/AIDS denial and even Global Warming denialism for which Science Blogs writer Mark Hoofnagle noted, Adams “anti-government conspiratorial tendencies with his overriding naturalistic fantasy to decide the government (and Al Gore) are conspiring to destroy our power infrastructure with carbon taxes…”<br />
<br />
=== Christopher Booker ===<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation] Christopher Booker; Daily Telegraph; 28 Nov 2009<br />
: Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.<br />
<br />
: Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy Climategate] stolen emails.<br />
<br />
: ''Also carried by [http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation/ InfoWars]''<br />
<br />
=== Paul Homewood ===<br />
<br />
Homewood is a retired accountant<ref><br />
''"Last month, the [Global Warming Policy] Foundation published an inaccurate and misleading pamphlet on ‘Tropical hurricanes in the age of global warming’. Written by Paul Homewood, a retired accountant ..."''<br />
in<br />
"[http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-trying-to-fool-the-public-again-about-extreme-weather/ Climate change deniers trying to fool the public again about extreme weather]" by Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, on 15th Feb 2019<br />
</ref><br />
who writes<ref><br />
''"Paul Homewood, author of a blog in a niche corner of the Denier-Gammon bloggersphere Not a Lot of People Know That"''<br />
in "[https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/08/21/thatcher-s-disputed-climate-legacy-and-death-british-climate-denial Comment: Thatcher's Disputed Legacy and the Death of British Climate Science Denial]" by Mike Small in deSmog blog on 21 Aug 2018<br />
</ref> the climate denialist [https://donotlink.it/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/ Not A Lot Of People Know That] blog.<br />
<br />
Homewood is credited with providing arguments used by Christopher Booker<ref><br />
''"Interestingly, in his final column, Booker failed to mention that many of his arguments were based on the work of climate science denier blogger Paul Homewood."''<br />
in<br />
[https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/04/01/and-so-ends-30-years-climate-science-denial-christopher-booker-has-written-his-last-telegraph-column And So Ends 30 Years of Climate Science Denial — Christopher Booker Has Written His Last Telegraph Column] by Mat Hope in deSmog blog on 1 April 2019<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
=== Bjorn Lomborg ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Bjorn Lomborg Sea Level Rise.png | right | 600px]]<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/no-one-ever-says-it-but-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-a-go/ No one ever says it, but in many ways global warming will be a good thing] Bjorn Lomborg; Daily Telegraph; 5 May 2016<br />
{{q|Last week, a study in the prestigious journal Nature revealed just how much CO₂ increases have greened the Earth over the past three decades. Because CO₂ acts as a fertilizer, as much as half of all vegetated land is persistently greener today. This ought to be a cause for great joy. Instead, the BBC focused on warning that the paper shouldn’t make us stop worrying about global warming, with threats like melting glaciers and more severe tropical storms. Many other major news outlets did not even report on the study.}}<br />
<br />
[http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-telegraph-bjorn-lomborg-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-good-thing/ Analysis of Bjorn Lomborg’s “…in many ways global warming will be a good thing”] Climate Feedback<br />
{{q|14 scientists analyzed the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’ to 'very low'.}}<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
=== Matt Ridley ===<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley wikipedia]<br />
<br />
[https://www.desmogblog.com/matt-ridley deSmog Blog]<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20151204004641/http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/analysis-of-matt-ridley-benny-peiser-your-complete-guide-to-the-climate-debate/ Analysis of Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser’s “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate”] Climate Feedback (via Internet Archive); 27 Nov 2015<br />
: The opinion piece in the WSJ by Matt Ridley & Benny Peiser contains numerous false statements, cherry-picked evidence, and misleading assertions about climate science. It attempts to surround the hard facts about climate change with clouds of uncertainty, even though these facts are agreed to by the scientific academies of every major country in the world and the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.<br />
<br />
: Facts and/or studies are cherry picked or placed out of context to support the main claim that global warming is not as bad as we feared. For example the assertion that 1.5C of warming would be “beneficial” is one that very few scientists or economists agree with, and is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of evidence in the IPCC’s reports showing that the adverse impacts from climate change will far outweigh the benefits from carbon-dioxide induced greening and other heat-related effects.<br />
<br />
: ''WSJ article is paywalled''<br />
<br />
[https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-respond-to-matt-ridleys-climate-change-claims Scientists respond to Matt Ridley’s climate change claims] Carbon Brief; 7 Dec 2015<br />
: Ridley has [] gained prominence for writing regularly about climate change, describing himself as a “lukewarmer“.<br />
<br />
: As part of a recent three-part documentary series called Changing Climate for BBC Radio 4, Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s environment analyst, interviewed Matt Ridley, among a number of other people. The Open University has published many of the interviews online, both as recordings and full transcripts.<br />
<br />
: The Harrabin-Ridley transcript is arguably the most in-depth interview with the peer in the public domain on the topics of climate change and energy. Ridley makes a wide range of claims throughout, touching on subjects from ocean acidification and climate sensitivity through to energy subsidies and the “benefits” of global warming.<br />
<br />
: Recognising Ridley’s media prominence and influence with regard to climate change, Carbon Brief recently sent a copy of the transcript to various scientists and energy policy experts and asked them to respond to his claims by annotating the document with their comments and observations.<br />
<br />
: The document below includes responses from the following (in alphabetical order):<br />
<br />
* Prof Richard Allan, professor of climate science at the University of Reading<br />
* Prof Richard Betts, head of climate impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre<br />
* Prof Piers Forster, professor of physical climate change at the University of Leeds<br />
* Prof Jean-Pierre Gattuso, research professor at the Université Pierre-et-Marie Curie’s Laboratoire d’Océanographie de Villefranche<br />
* Prof Sir Andy Haines, professor of public health and primary care at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine<br />
* Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute<br />
* Dr Chris Hope, reader in policy modelling at the University of Cambridge<br />
* Dr Sari Kovatz, director of the National Institute for Health Research’s Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Change and Health<br />
* Prof Ranga Myneni, professor at the Boston University’s department of earth and environment<br />
* Dr Gavin A Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies<br />
* Prof Jim Watson, professor of energy policy at Sussex University’s Science Policy Research Unit<br />
<br />
[https://www.scribd.com/document/292508993/Matt-Ridley-interviewed-by-Roger-Harrabin Matt Ridley interview] scribd<br />
: ''part of the'' Carbon Brief page'', which can be viewed separately on scribd''<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/21/matt-ridley-wants-to-gamble-earths-future-because-wont-learn-from-past Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth’s future because he won’t learn from the past] Dana Nuccitelli; The Guardian; 21 Jan 2015<br />
: ... writer Matt Ridley ... complaining, “Rather than attack my arguments, my critics like to attack my motives.” That’s undoubtedly because when an individual keeps repeating the same myths over and over again, people eventually grow tired of debunking those myths and naturally question the motives of the individual who keeps making them.<br />
<br />
: Let’s look at a few examples from Ridley’s latest article. ...<br />
<br />
=== James Taylor ===<br />
==== Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis ====<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis] [[James Taylor]]; Forbes; 13 Feb 2013<br />
: Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.<br />
<br />
: ''relies on'':<br />
<br />
[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317 Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change] Lianne M. Lefsrud, Renate E. Meyer; Organisational Studies; 19 Nov 2012<br />
: ''examines attitudes of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists in the Canadian petroleum industry''<br />
<br />
: We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action<br />
<br />
[http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/ James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees] Climate Science Watch; 14 Feb 2013<br />
: In a Forbes op-ed, James Taylor takes a study that prominently reveals the anti-science influence of oil and gas companies, and spins it to suggest that serious, substantive disagreement exists among relevant scientists on climate change. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the very study he cites, as well as numerous other studies that have surveyed climate scientists.<br />
<br />
==== NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat ====<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/ Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat] James Taylor; Forbes; 19 May 2015<br />
: Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.<br />
<br />
(Also at [http://climatechangedispatch.com/updated-nasa-data-global-warming-not-causing-any-polar-ice-retreat/ Climate Change Dispatch])<br />
<br />
[https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlchapma/Forbes.article.response.pdf A Response to Forbes.com article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/] [http://cs.illinois.edu/directory/profile/wlchapma William Chapman]; University of Illinois, Urbana<br />
<br />
[http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/forbes-james-taylor-updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/ Analysis of “Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”] Climate Feedback; <br />
: Nine scientists analyzed the article and estimated that its overall scientific credibility was very low<br />
<br />
: This article has been read more than 660,000 times since it was published in May, making it Forbes’s most read article on climate in 2015. So how accurate was it?<br />
<br />
: Not accurate at all. According to the reviewers, this article contains numerous factual errors and flawed logic. The author fails to distinguish between sea and land ice, and the Arctic and Antarctic. Taylor’s conclusion, which contradicts the observed signal of global warming on polar ice, is misleading.<br />
<br />
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/ This is climate skeptics’ latest argument about melting polar ice — and why it’s wrong] Chris Mooney; Washington Post; 27 May 2015<br />
: I came across numerous citations of a much-read article at Forbes by James Taylor, titled “Updated NASA Data: Global warming not causing any polar ice retreat.”<br />
<br />
: There are many problems with this claim. In effect — and as we’ll see — Taylor is falling into a long climate “skeptic” tradition of pointing toward growing sea ice around Antarctica, and thereby suggesting that this trend undermines broader concerns about polar ice melt, or climate change in general. It doesn’t. <br />
<br />
[http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/how-forbes-got-it-wrong-the-real-climate-change-data-from-nasa/ How Forbes got it wrong: The real climate change data from NASA] The Manufacturer; 2 Jun 2015<br />
: A new Forbes article which claimed that polar ice coverage has not changed since 1979 has been revealed to be based off misrepresented data.<br />
<br />
: The problem is however, it did no such thing.<br />
<br />
: The Manufacturer contacted NASA for comment on the article, which has been viewed more than 280,000 times. But the organisation flatly denied that it was the source of the “new data”.<br />
<br />
: “The article does not reference any NASA data source. The article links to a single graph posted on a University of Illinois website to support its claims. NASA has not released any new or updated data that supports these claims,” stated Stephen Cole, a Communications Officer from NASA.<br />
<br />
: James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article, who also works for a conservative think-tank called the Heartland Institute, appears to have invented the NASA connection for this data in an attempt to give it authenticity.<br />
<br />
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/05/26/climate_change_denying_reality_is_a_threat_to_our_nation.html Climate Change Denial Is a Threat to National Security] Phil Plait; Bad Astronomy; 26 May 2016<br />
: ...look at an op-ed in Forbes magazine written by Heartland Institute’s James Taylor (yes, that Heartland Institute). Taylor has a history of cherry-picking and distorting results from real climate scientists, and he’s doing the same thing here.<br />
<br />
: In the op-ed, he claims that global warming has not caused global sea ice retreat. This is a gross distortion of reality. The truth is that in the arctic we’re seeing record low levels of sea ice year after year, including just this year, when in March the North Pole saw the lowest maximum ice extent on record.<br />
<br />
=== Willie Soon ===<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry] Suzanne Goldenberg; Guardian; 21 Feb 2015<br />
: A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show. Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.<br />
<br />
=== Euan Mearns ===<br />
''All articles by Euan Mearns are in his Energy Matters blog unless otherwise stated.''<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-cosmogenic-isotope-record-and-the-role-of-the-sun-in-shaping-earths-climate/ The Cosmogenic Isotope Record and the Role of The Sun in Shaping Earth’s Climate] 22 Jan 2018<br />
: The defining division between “climate sceptics” and “greenhouse gas warmists” is the role of the Sun in causing Earth’s climate to oscillate. The anecdotal evidence for a significant solar role comes from the observation that during the Little Ice Age (LIA) sunspots were virtually absent from the Sun for a few decades – and in Europe at least it was periodically very cold. The HARD scientific evidence that backs this up comes from cosmogenic isotope variations that provide a record of solar geomagentic activity. It is surprising therefore that The Geological Society of London’s (GSL) 2010 position statement on climate change does not mention the incredible cosmogenic isotope record at all.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/cosmic-rays-magnetic-fields-and-climate-change/ Cosmic Rays, Magnetic Fields and Climate Change] 29 Jan 2018<br />
: In my recent post on The Cosmogenic Isotope Record and the Role of The Sun in Shaping Earth’s Climate an interesting discussion developed in comments where there was a fair amount of disagreement among my sceptical colleagues. A few days later, retired Apollo astronaut Phil Chapman sent me this article which lays some of the doubts to rest. Phil never got to fly in space but was mission Scientist on Apollo 14. It is not every day I get the opportunity to publish an article from such a pre-eminent scientist.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-death-of-sunspot-cycle-24-huge-snow-and-record-cold/ The Death of Sunspot Cycle 24, Huge Snow and Record Cold] 31 Jan 2018<br />
: My friend Alex is in Chamonix in the shadow of Mont Blanc in the French Alps. He sent some very snowy pics and mentioned that it was fair dinging down. The most snow since 2010. Knowing that sunspot cycle 24 was well-advanced I did some checking and came across a web site called Weather to Ski that had some amazing pics of big snow. One picture in particular caught my attention. See inset and below the fold.<br />
<br />
: It looks like the snow in this drift is ~ 8m deep. And this is in the valley, not in the high basins where the snow fields that feed the glaciers lie. Now it’s obviously far too early to begin to draw any conclusions. But IF we get a run of 3 or 4 winters that dump this much snow, it is not inconceivable for me to imagine Alpine glaciers once again beginning to advance. I’m totally unsure how long it takes for pressure in the glacier source to feed through to advance of the snout.<br />
<br />
: So what is going on? We’ve been told by climate scientists that snow would become a thing of the past. We’ve also been told that global warming might lead to more snow and less snow. And we’ve been told that warming might even lead to cooling. The competing theory to the CO2 greenhouse is that the Sun has a prominent role in modulating Earth’s climate that was so eloquently described by Phil Chapman in his post earlier this week. This theory simply observes a strong connection between a weak solar wind (that is expressed by low sunspot numbers) and cold, snowy winters in the N hemisphere. Uniquely, most of those who argue for a strong solar influence also acknowledge the overprint of anthropogenic CO2. The IPCC effectively sets the Sun to zero. The Sun is entering a grand solar minimum already christened the Eddy Minimum by the solar physics community.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-week-of-the-beast-unplugged/ The Week of The Beast Unplugged] 15 Mar 2018<br />
: '''Sudden Stratospheric Warming'''<br />
: Before looking at the electricity data I want to dwell on the cause of The Beast which comes down to a process called Sudden Stratospheric Warming. This UK Met Office link has this to say (note there is also a good vid).<br />
<br />
:: ''The term SSW refers to what we observe – rapid warming (up to about 50 °C in just a couple of days) in the stratosphere, between 10 km and 50 km up.<br />
''<br />
:: ''Jet streams high up in our atmosphere, in both the northern and southern hemisphere, circumnavigate the Earth from west to east. One of these, the Polar Night Jet, circles the Arctic.''<br />
<br />
:: ''Sometimes the usual westerly flow can be disrupted by natural weather patterns or disturbances in the lower part of the atmosphere, such as a large area of high pressure in the northern hemisphere. This causes the Polar Jet to wobble and these wobbles, or waves, break just like waves on the beach. When they break they can be strong enough to weaken or even reverse the westerly winds and swing them to easterlies. As this happens, air in the stratosphere starts to collapse in to the polar cap and compress. As it compresses it warms, hence the stratospheric warming.<br />
''<br />
: This is the official view that needs to be contrasted with the man-made climate change drivel emanating from factions of the climate change community.<br />
<br />
== Legal harassment of climate scientists ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/07/climate-scientists-are-under-attack-from-frivolous-lawsuits Climate scientists are under attack from frivolous lawsuits] Lauren Kurtz; Guardian; 7 Jul 2016<br />
: Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is forced to defend climate scientists against constant frivolous lawsuits. On June 14th, an Arizona court ruled that thousands of emails from two prominent climate scientists must be turned over to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E), a group that disputes the 97% expert consensus on human-caused climate change and argues against action to confront it. E&E and its attorneys are funded by Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources, coal corporations with billions of dollars in revenue.<br />
<br />
== Examples ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.dailywire.com/news/13817/scientists-we-know-what-really-causes-climate-james-barrett Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)] James Barrett; The Daily Wire; 24 Feb 2017<br />
: A new study produced by a University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscientist and Northwestern astrophysicist presents an explanation of the fluctuations of the earth's temperatures that global warming alarmists are going to make sure to bury: The cycle of changes in the climate over the millennia is a result of changes in the amount of solar radiation, in part caused by small changes in the orbits of Earth and Mars. <br />
<br />
''Cites:''<br />
<br />
[http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/ From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’] Terry Devitt; University of Wisconsin-Madison news; 22 Feb 2017<br />
: The variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes in our planet’s climate — changes that can be reflected in the rocks that record Earth’s history<br />
: ''(The Daily Wire article actually quotes this)''<br />
<br />
''Based on paper:''<br />
<br />
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7642/full/nature21364.html A simple rule to determine which insolation cycles lead to interglacials] P. C. Tzedakis, M. Crucifix, T. Mitsui, E. W. Wolff; Nature; 23 Feb 2017<br />
: The pacing of glacial–interglacial cycles during the Quaternary period (the past 2.6 million years) is attributed to astronomically driven changes in high-latitude insolation. However, it has not been clear how astronomical forcing translates into the observed sequence of interglacials. Here we show that before one million years ago interglacials occurred when the energy related to summer insolation exceeded a simple threshold, about every 41,000 years. Over the past one million years, fewer of these insolation peaks resulted in deglaciation (that is, more insolation peaks were ‘skipped’), implying that the energy threshold for deglaciation had risen, which led to longer glacials. However, as a glacial lengthens, the energy needed for deglaciation decreases. A statistical model that combines these observations correctly predicts every complete deglaciation of the past million years and shows that the sequence of interglacials that has occurred is one of a small set of possibilities. The model accounts for the dominance of obliquity-paced glacial–interglacial cycles early in the Quaternary and for the change in their frequency about one million years ago. We propose that the appearance of larger ice sheets over the past million years was a consequence of an increase in the deglaciation threshold and in the number of skipped insolation peaks.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/ Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?] Snopes<br />
: A blog post, even if you like it and it is presented in downloadable PDF form, is not a peer-reviewed study.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07042017/heartland-institute-climate-change-denial-science-education Educators Decry Conservative Group's Climate 'Propaganda' Sent to Schoolteachers] Phil McKenna; Inside Climate News; 10 Apr 2017<br />
: Teaching material sent by Heartland Institute to thousands of teachers denies climate science, aims to teach a 'debate.'<br />
<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=AGW_denial&diff=5523AGW denial2022-11-15T12:28:15Z<p>Sisussman: /* Bjorn Lomborg */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:2]]<br />
[[Category: AGW denial]]<br />
<br />
Almost all scientific experts agree that the world's climate is changing because of human activities, and that the effects of changing climate pose many threats to humans and other life. Experts disagree only about some details of the changes occurring now and in the future and their exact consequences.<br />
<br />
But there are many groups and individuals who deny that the climate is changing significantly, deny that it is changing due to human activities, or deny that the consequences for humans are significant. They assert that the scientific experts are either incompetent or corrupt (or both). Some of these groups and individuals are purely ideologically driven whilst some are supported by interests (such as the fossil fuel industry) who see themselves as having much to lose from effective action on climate change (such as a move away from fossil fuels).<br />
<br />
There are also groups and individuals setting out to counter AGW denialist claims with scientifically-accurate information, and some (such as [https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database desmog blog's denier database]) identifying denialists and their affliations.<br />
<br />
However the beliefs of committed denialists can be firmly entrenched and attempting to change them by providing more accurate information may be ineffective or even counter-productive. The field of [[Science#communication|science communication]] studies and attempts to provide solutions for this problem.<br />
<br />
== General ==<br />
[https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database Global Warming Disinformation Database] desmog blog<br />
: search and browse our extensive research on the individuals and organizations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight global warming.<br />
<br />
[http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/ If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong] John Timmer; Ars Technica; 28 Feb 2011<br />
: One of the more unfortunate memes that makes an appearance whenever climate science is discussed is the accusation that, by hyping their results, climate scientists are ensuring themselves steady paychecks, and may even be enriching themselves. So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science?<br />
<br />
[http://grist.org/news/scientists-try-to-replicate-climate-denier-findings-and-fail/ Scientists try to replicate climate denier findings and fail] Suzanne Jacobs; Grist; 26 Aug 2015<br />
: A group of researchers just tried to replicate 38 peer-reviewed studies that support skeptic talking points, and surprise! They ran into some trouble.<br />
<br />
: In a paper published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, the researchers reported a number of problems with the 38 studies, including questionable physics and incomplete data sets. They also found that some of the studies were published in peer-reviewed journals that didn’t specialize in climate science, and therefore probably didn’t have the proper experts looking over the work.<br />
<br />
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5 Learning from mistakes in climate research] Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, John Cook; Theoretical and Applied Climatology; 20 Aug 2015<br />
: Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.<br />
<br />
[http://climatefeedback.org/ Climate Feedback]<br />
: a site providing expert scientific review of climate stories in media<br />
<br />
[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/ Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement] Colin Schultz; Smithsonian Magazine; 23 Dec 2013<br />
: There is a very well-funded, well-orchestrated climate change-denial movement, one funded by powerful people with very deep pockets. In a new and incredibly thorough study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle took a deep dive into the financial structure of the climate deniers, to see who is holding the purse strings.<br />
<br />
== Organisations ==<br />
<br />
=== Global Warming Policy Foundation / Forum ===<br />
<br />
Climate denialist organisation, registered in the UK as an educational charity but engaging in political lobbying, founded by former Conservative politician and Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord, Nigel Lawson<br />
<br />
[http://www.thegwpf.com/ GWPF website]<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation Wikipedia]<br />
: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.<br />
<br />
: It promotes climate change denial.[5][6] In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts.<br />
<br />
[https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)] deSmog blog<br />
<br />
[https://www.desmog.uk/search/google/gwpf Search GWPF on deSmog blog]<br />
<br />
[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation GWPF on SourceWatch]<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/27/tory-donor-climate-sceptic-thinktank Michael Hintze revealed as funder of Lord Lawson's climate thinktank] Graham Readfearn, Leo Hickman and Rupert Neate; The Guardian; 27 Mar 2012<br />
: Michael Hintze, a leading Conservative party donor who runs the £5bn hedge fund CQS, has emerged as a financial backer of the climate sceptic thinktank founded by former chancellor, Lord Nigel Lawson.<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation revealed] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 2 Sep 2014<br />
: Neil Record and Nigel Vinson confirm their donations, and are both linked to thinktank that took funds from oil companies<br />
<br />
: Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation have been revealed. This is the first time anyone financing the group has confirmed their contributions. Both are linked to a free-market thinktank, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), which has admitted taking funding from fossil fuel companies and has also argued against climate change mitigation.<br />
<br />
: Lord Lawson has steadfastly refused to name the funders of the Global Warming Policy Foundation since its inception in 2009, stating only that none have significant fossil fuel interests. The GWPF has become the most prominent climate sceptic group in the UK, but critics of the GWPF argue that funders’ names should be made public in the interest of transparency.<br />
<br />
: The names were uncovered by the investigative blog Desmog UK. Neil Record, the founding chairman of a currency management company Record and an IEA trustee, confirmed he has given money to the GWPF but said the amount was a “private matter”. Record gave the IEA £36,000 to support a seminar featuring Lawson in November 2009 and on the same day Lawson launched the GWPF. Record told the Guardian: “I personally regard the continuing contribution of the GWPF to the climate change debate as very positive in assisting balance and rationality in this contentious area.”<br />
<br />
=== Breitbart ===<br />
<br />
[https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans] The Weather Channel; 9 Dec 2016 ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M YouTube])<br />
: Global warming is not expected to end anytime soon, despite what Breitbart.com wrote in [http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/ an article published last week].<br />
<br />
: Though we would prefer to focus on our usual coverage of weather and climate science, in this case we felt it important to add our two cents — especially because a video clip from weather.com (La Niña in Pacific Affects Weather in New England) was prominently featured at the top of the Breitbart article. Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it. The Breitbart article – a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case – includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare." In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and will keep doing so.<br />
<br />
=== Facebook ===<br />
<br />
The [https://www.facebook.com/groups/climate.discussion/ Climate Change Discussion] group is a common source of denialist posts and contributors.<br />
<br />
== People ==<br />
<br />
=== Mike Adams ===<br />
[https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/mike-adams-natural-news-everyones-favorite-uber-quack-1-anti-science-website/ Mike Adams: Natural News, “everyone’s favorite über-quack #1 anti-science website”] Genetic Literacy Project; 4 Jan 2019<br />
: Adams conspiracy theories are not limited to GMOs, but include anti-vaccine, Obama ‘birther,’ HIV/AIDS denial and even Global Warming denialism for which Science Blogs writer Mark Hoofnagle noted, Adams “anti-government conspiratorial tendencies with his overriding naturalistic fantasy to decide the government (and Al Gore) are conspiring to destroy our power infrastructure with carbon taxes…”<br />
<br />
=== Christopher Booker ===<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation] Christopher Booker; Daily Telegraph; 28 Nov 2009<br />
: Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.<br />
<br />
: Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy Climategate] stolen emails.<br />
<br />
: ''Also carried by [http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation/ InfoWars]''<br />
<br />
=== Paul Homewood ===<br />
<br />
Homewood is a retired accountant<ref><br />
''"Last month, the [Global Warming Policy] Foundation published an inaccurate and misleading pamphlet on ‘Tropical hurricanes in the age of global warming’. Written by Paul Homewood, a retired accountant ..."''<br />
in<br />
"[http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-trying-to-fool-the-public-again-about-extreme-weather/ Climate change deniers trying to fool the public again about extreme weather]" by Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, on 15th Feb 2019<br />
</ref><br />
who writes<ref><br />
''"Paul Homewood, author of a blog in a niche corner of the Denier-Gammon bloggersphere Not a Lot of People Know That"''<br />
in "[https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/08/21/thatcher-s-disputed-climate-legacy-and-death-british-climate-denial Comment: Thatcher's Disputed Legacy and the Death of British Climate Science Denial]" by Mike Small in deSmog blog on 21 Aug 2018<br />
</ref> the climate denialist [https://donotlink.it/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/ Not A Lot Of People Know That] blog.<br />
<br />
Homewood is credited with providing arguments used by Christopher Booker<ref><br />
''"Interestingly, in his final column, Booker failed to mention that many of his arguments were based on the work of climate science denier blogger Paul Homewood."''<br />
in<br />
[https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/04/01/and-so-ends-30-years-climate-science-denial-christopher-booker-has-written-his-last-telegraph-column And So Ends 30 Years of Climate Science Denial — Christopher Booker Has Written His Last Telegraph Column] by Mat Hope in deSmog blog on 1 April 2019<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
=== Bjorn Lomborg ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Bjorn Lomborg Sea Level Rise.png | right | 600px]]<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/no-one-ever-says-it-but-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-a-go/ No one ever says it, but in many ways global warming will be a good thing] Bjorn Lomborg; Daily Telegraph; 5 May 2016<br />
{{q|Last week, a study in the prestigious journal Nature revealed just how much CO₂ increases have greened the Earth over the past three decades. Because CO₂ acts as a fertilizer, as much as half of all vegetated land is persistently greener today. This ought to be a cause for great joy. Instead, the BBC focused on warning that the paper shouldn’t make us stop worrying about global warming, with threats like melting glaciers and more severe tropical storms. Many other major news outlets did not even report on the study.}}<br />
<br />
[http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-telegraph-bjorn-lomborg-in-many-ways-global-warming-will-be-good-thing/ Analysis of Bjorn Lomborg’s “…in many ways global warming will be a good thing”] Climate Feedback<br />
{{q|14 scientists analyzed the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’ to 'very low'.}}<br />
<br />
=== Matt Ridley ===<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley wikipedia]<br />
<br />
[https://www.desmogblog.com/matt-ridley deSmog Blog]<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20151204004641/http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/analysis-of-matt-ridley-benny-peiser-your-complete-guide-to-the-climate-debate/ Analysis of Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser’s “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate”] Climate Feedback (via Internet Archive); 27 Nov 2015<br />
: The opinion piece in the WSJ by Matt Ridley & Benny Peiser contains numerous false statements, cherry-picked evidence, and misleading assertions about climate science. It attempts to surround the hard facts about climate change with clouds of uncertainty, even though these facts are agreed to by the scientific academies of every major country in the world and the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.<br />
<br />
: Facts and/or studies are cherry picked or placed out of context to support the main claim that global warming is not as bad as we feared. For example the assertion that 1.5C of warming would be “beneficial” is one that very few scientists or economists agree with, and is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of evidence in the IPCC’s reports showing that the adverse impacts from climate change will far outweigh the benefits from carbon-dioxide induced greening and other heat-related effects.<br />
<br />
: ''WSJ article is paywalled''<br />
<br />
[https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-respond-to-matt-ridleys-climate-change-claims Scientists respond to Matt Ridley’s climate change claims] Carbon Brief; 7 Dec 2015<br />
: Ridley has [] gained prominence for writing regularly about climate change, describing himself as a “lukewarmer“.<br />
<br />
: As part of a recent three-part documentary series called Changing Climate for BBC Radio 4, Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s environment analyst, interviewed Matt Ridley, among a number of other people. The Open University has published many of the interviews online, both as recordings and full transcripts.<br />
<br />
: The Harrabin-Ridley transcript is arguably the most in-depth interview with the peer in the public domain on the topics of climate change and energy. Ridley makes a wide range of claims throughout, touching on subjects from ocean acidification and climate sensitivity through to energy subsidies and the “benefits” of global warming.<br />
<br />
: Recognising Ridley’s media prominence and influence with regard to climate change, Carbon Brief recently sent a copy of the transcript to various scientists and energy policy experts and asked them to respond to his claims by annotating the document with their comments and observations.<br />
<br />
: The document below includes responses from the following (in alphabetical order):<br />
<br />
* Prof Richard Allan, professor of climate science at the University of Reading<br />
* Prof Richard Betts, head of climate impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre<br />
* Prof Piers Forster, professor of physical climate change at the University of Leeds<br />
* Prof Jean-Pierre Gattuso, research professor at the Université Pierre-et-Marie Curie’s Laboratoire d’Océanographie de Villefranche<br />
* Prof Sir Andy Haines, professor of public health and primary care at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine<br />
* Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute<br />
* Dr Chris Hope, reader in policy modelling at the University of Cambridge<br />
* Dr Sari Kovatz, director of the National Institute for Health Research’s Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Change and Health<br />
* Prof Ranga Myneni, professor at the Boston University’s department of earth and environment<br />
* Dr Gavin A Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies<br />
* Prof Jim Watson, professor of energy policy at Sussex University’s Science Policy Research Unit<br />
<br />
[https://www.scribd.com/document/292508993/Matt-Ridley-interviewed-by-Roger-Harrabin Matt Ridley interview] scribd<br />
: ''part of the'' Carbon Brief page'', which can be viewed separately on scribd''<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/21/matt-ridley-wants-to-gamble-earths-future-because-wont-learn-from-past Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth’s future because he won’t learn from the past] Dana Nuccitelli; The Guardian; 21 Jan 2015<br />
: ... writer Matt Ridley ... complaining, “Rather than attack my arguments, my critics like to attack my motives.” That’s undoubtedly because when an individual keeps repeating the same myths over and over again, people eventually grow tired of debunking those myths and naturally question the motives of the individual who keeps making them.<br />
<br />
: Let’s look at a few examples from Ridley’s latest article. ...<br />
<br />
=== James Taylor ===<br />
==== Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis ====<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis] [[James Taylor]]; Forbes; 13 Feb 2013<br />
: Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.<br />
<br />
: ''relies on'':<br />
<br />
[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0170840612463317 Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change] Lianne M. Lefsrud, Renate E. Meyer; Organisational Studies; 19 Nov 2012<br />
: ''examines attitudes of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists in the Canadian petroleum industry''<br />
<br />
: We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action<br />
<br />
[http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/ James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees] Climate Science Watch; 14 Feb 2013<br />
: In a Forbes op-ed, James Taylor takes a study that prominently reveals the anti-science influence of oil and gas companies, and spins it to suggest that serious, substantive disagreement exists among relevant scientists on climate change. This could not be further from the truth, as evidenced by the very study he cites, as well as numerous other studies that have surveyed climate scientists.<br />
<br />
==== NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat ====<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/ Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat] James Taylor; Forbes; 19 May 2015<br />
: Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.<br />
<br />
(Also at [http://climatechangedispatch.com/updated-nasa-data-global-warming-not-causing-any-polar-ice-retreat/ Climate Change Dispatch])<br />
<br />
[https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlchapma/Forbes.article.response.pdf A Response to Forbes.com article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/] [http://cs.illinois.edu/directory/profile/wlchapma William Chapman]; University of Illinois, Urbana<br />
<br />
[http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/forbes-james-taylor-updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/ Analysis of “Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”] Climate Feedback; <br />
: Nine scientists analyzed the article and estimated that its overall scientific credibility was very low<br />
<br />
: This article has been read more than 660,000 times since it was published in May, making it Forbes’s most read article on climate in 2015. So how accurate was it?<br />
<br />
: Not accurate at all. According to the reviewers, this article contains numerous factual errors and flawed logic. The author fails to distinguish between sea and land ice, and the Arctic and Antarctic. Taylor’s conclusion, which contradicts the observed signal of global warming on polar ice, is misleading.<br />
<br />
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/ This is climate skeptics’ latest argument about melting polar ice — and why it’s wrong] Chris Mooney; Washington Post; 27 May 2015<br />
: I came across numerous citations of a much-read article at Forbes by James Taylor, titled “Updated NASA Data: Global warming not causing any polar ice retreat.”<br />
<br />
: There are many problems with this claim. In effect — and as we’ll see — Taylor is falling into a long climate “skeptic” tradition of pointing toward growing sea ice around Antarctica, and thereby suggesting that this trend undermines broader concerns about polar ice melt, or climate change in general. It doesn’t. <br />
<br />
[http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/how-forbes-got-it-wrong-the-real-climate-change-data-from-nasa/ How Forbes got it wrong: The real climate change data from NASA] The Manufacturer; 2 Jun 2015<br />
: A new Forbes article which claimed that polar ice coverage has not changed since 1979 has been revealed to be based off misrepresented data.<br />
<br />
: The problem is however, it did no such thing.<br />
<br />
: The Manufacturer contacted NASA for comment on the article, which has been viewed more than 280,000 times. But the organisation flatly denied that it was the source of the “new data”.<br />
<br />
: “The article does not reference any NASA data source. The article links to a single graph posted on a University of Illinois website to support its claims. NASA has not released any new or updated data that supports these claims,” stated Stephen Cole, a Communications Officer from NASA.<br />
<br />
: James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article, who also works for a conservative think-tank called the Heartland Institute, appears to have invented the NASA connection for this data in an attempt to give it authenticity.<br />
<br />
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/05/26/climate_change_denying_reality_is_a_threat_to_our_nation.html Climate Change Denial Is a Threat to National Security] Phil Plait; Bad Astronomy; 26 May 2016<br />
: ...look at an op-ed in Forbes magazine written by Heartland Institute’s James Taylor (yes, that Heartland Institute). Taylor has a history of cherry-picking and distorting results from real climate scientists, and he’s doing the same thing here.<br />
<br />
: In the op-ed, he claims that global warming has not caused global sea ice retreat. This is a gross distortion of reality. The truth is that in the arctic we’re seeing record low levels of sea ice year after year, including just this year, when in March the North Pole saw the lowest maximum ice extent on record.<br />
<br />
=== Willie Soon ===<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry] Suzanne Goldenberg; Guardian; 21 Feb 2015<br />
: A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show. Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.<br />
<br />
=== Euan Mearns ===<br />
''All articles by Euan Mearns are in his Energy Matters blog unless otherwise stated.''<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-cosmogenic-isotope-record-and-the-role-of-the-sun-in-shaping-earths-climate/ The Cosmogenic Isotope Record and the Role of The Sun in Shaping Earth’s Climate] 22 Jan 2018<br />
: The defining division between “climate sceptics” and “greenhouse gas warmists” is the role of the Sun in causing Earth’s climate to oscillate. The anecdotal evidence for a significant solar role comes from the observation that during the Little Ice Age (LIA) sunspots were virtually absent from the Sun for a few decades – and in Europe at least it was periodically very cold. The HARD scientific evidence that backs this up comes from cosmogenic isotope variations that provide a record of solar geomagentic activity. It is surprising therefore that The Geological Society of London’s (GSL) 2010 position statement on climate change does not mention the incredible cosmogenic isotope record at all.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/cosmic-rays-magnetic-fields-and-climate-change/ Cosmic Rays, Magnetic Fields and Climate Change] 29 Jan 2018<br />
: In my recent post on The Cosmogenic Isotope Record and the Role of The Sun in Shaping Earth’s Climate an interesting discussion developed in comments where there was a fair amount of disagreement among my sceptical colleagues. A few days later, retired Apollo astronaut Phil Chapman sent me this article which lays some of the doubts to rest. Phil never got to fly in space but was mission Scientist on Apollo 14. It is not every day I get the opportunity to publish an article from such a pre-eminent scientist.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-death-of-sunspot-cycle-24-huge-snow-and-record-cold/ The Death of Sunspot Cycle 24, Huge Snow and Record Cold] 31 Jan 2018<br />
: My friend Alex is in Chamonix in the shadow of Mont Blanc in the French Alps. He sent some very snowy pics and mentioned that it was fair dinging down. The most snow since 2010. Knowing that sunspot cycle 24 was well-advanced I did some checking and came across a web site called Weather to Ski that had some amazing pics of big snow. One picture in particular caught my attention. See inset and below the fold.<br />
<br />
: It looks like the snow in this drift is ~ 8m deep. And this is in the valley, not in the high basins where the snow fields that feed the glaciers lie. Now it’s obviously far too early to begin to draw any conclusions. But IF we get a run of 3 or 4 winters that dump this much snow, it is not inconceivable for me to imagine Alpine glaciers once again beginning to advance. I’m totally unsure how long it takes for pressure in the glacier source to feed through to advance of the snout.<br />
<br />
: So what is going on? We’ve been told by climate scientists that snow would become a thing of the past. We’ve also been told that global warming might lead to more snow and less snow. And we’ve been told that warming might even lead to cooling. The competing theory to the CO2 greenhouse is that the Sun has a prominent role in modulating Earth’s climate that was so eloquently described by Phil Chapman in his post earlier this week. This theory simply observes a strong connection between a weak solar wind (that is expressed by low sunspot numbers) and cold, snowy winters in the N hemisphere. Uniquely, most of those who argue for a strong solar influence also acknowledge the overprint of anthropogenic CO2. The IPCC effectively sets the Sun to zero. The Sun is entering a grand solar minimum already christened the Eddy Minimum by the solar physics community.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-week-of-the-beast-unplugged/ The Week of The Beast Unplugged] 15 Mar 2018<br />
: '''Sudden Stratospheric Warming'''<br />
: Before looking at the electricity data I want to dwell on the cause of The Beast which comes down to a process called Sudden Stratospheric Warming. This UK Met Office link has this to say (note there is also a good vid).<br />
<br />
:: ''The term SSW refers to what we observe – rapid warming (up to about 50 °C in just a couple of days) in the stratosphere, between 10 km and 50 km up.<br />
''<br />
:: ''Jet streams high up in our atmosphere, in both the northern and southern hemisphere, circumnavigate the Earth from west to east. One of these, the Polar Night Jet, circles the Arctic.''<br />
<br />
:: ''Sometimes the usual westerly flow can be disrupted by natural weather patterns or disturbances in the lower part of the atmosphere, such as a large area of high pressure in the northern hemisphere. This causes the Polar Jet to wobble and these wobbles, or waves, break just like waves on the beach. When they break they can be strong enough to weaken or even reverse the westerly winds and swing them to easterlies. As this happens, air in the stratosphere starts to collapse in to the polar cap and compress. As it compresses it warms, hence the stratospheric warming.<br />
''<br />
: This is the official view that needs to be contrasted with the man-made climate change drivel emanating from factions of the climate change community.<br />
<br />
== Legal harassment of climate scientists ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/07/climate-scientists-are-under-attack-from-frivolous-lawsuits Climate scientists are under attack from frivolous lawsuits] Lauren Kurtz; Guardian; 7 Jul 2016<br />
: Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is forced to defend climate scientists against constant frivolous lawsuits. On June 14th, an Arizona court ruled that thousands of emails from two prominent climate scientists must be turned over to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E), a group that disputes the 97% expert consensus on human-caused climate change and argues against action to confront it. E&E and its attorneys are funded by Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources, coal corporations with billions of dollars in revenue.<br />
<br />
== Examples ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.dailywire.com/news/13817/scientists-we-know-what-really-causes-climate-james-barrett Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)] James Barrett; The Daily Wire; 24 Feb 2017<br />
: A new study produced by a University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscientist and Northwestern astrophysicist presents an explanation of the fluctuations of the earth's temperatures that global warming alarmists are going to make sure to bury: The cycle of changes in the climate over the millennia is a result of changes in the amount of solar radiation, in part caused by small changes in the orbits of Earth and Mars. <br />
<br />
''Cites:''<br />
<br />
[http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/ From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’] Terry Devitt; University of Wisconsin-Madison news; 22 Feb 2017<br />
: The variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes in our planet’s climate — changes that can be reflected in the rocks that record Earth’s history<br />
: ''(The Daily Wire article actually quotes this)''<br />
<br />
''Based on paper:''<br />
<br />
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7642/full/nature21364.html A simple rule to determine which insolation cycles lead to interglacials] P. C. Tzedakis, M. Crucifix, T. Mitsui, E. W. Wolff; Nature; 23 Feb 2017<br />
: The pacing of glacial–interglacial cycles during the Quaternary period (the past 2.6 million years) is attributed to astronomically driven changes in high-latitude insolation. However, it has not been clear how astronomical forcing translates into the observed sequence of interglacials. Here we show that before one million years ago interglacials occurred when the energy related to summer insolation exceeded a simple threshold, about every 41,000 years. Over the past one million years, fewer of these insolation peaks resulted in deglaciation (that is, more insolation peaks were ‘skipped’), implying that the energy threshold for deglaciation had risen, which led to longer glacials. However, as a glacial lengthens, the energy needed for deglaciation decreases. A statistical model that combines these observations correctly predicts every complete deglaciation of the past million years and shows that the sequence of interglacials that has occurred is one of a small set of possibilities. The model accounts for the dominance of obliquity-paced glacial–interglacial cycles early in the Quaternary and for the change in their frequency about one million years ago. We propose that the appearance of larger ice sheets over the past million years was a consequence of an increase in the deglaciation threshold and in the number of skipped insolation peaks.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/ Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?] Snopes<br />
: A blog post, even if you like it and it is presented in downloadable PDF form, is not a peer-reviewed study.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07042017/heartland-institute-climate-change-denial-science-education Educators Decry Conservative Group's Climate 'Propaganda' Sent to Schoolteachers] Phil McKenna; Inside Climate News; 10 Apr 2017<br />
: Teaching material sent by Heartland Institute to thousands of teachers denies climate science, aims to teach a 'debate.'<br />
<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bjorn_Lomborg_Sea_Level_Rise.png&diff=5522File:Bjorn Lomborg Sea Level Rise.png2022-11-15T12:22:40Z<p>Sisussman: Quote from Bjorn Lomborg claiming sea levels have fallen over 2 years with graph of rises over longer term</p>
<hr />
<div>== Summary ==<br />
Quote from Bjorn Lomborg claiming sea levels have fallen over 2 years with graph of rises over longer term</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_storage&diff=5521Energy storage2022-11-10T15:22:44Z<p>Sisussman: /* Isentropic */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:2]]<br />
[[Category:Energy storage]]<br />
<br />
In a grid connecting electricity generators to consumers the amount of electricity generated must exactly match the amount demanded at every instant or voltage (and frequency) will rise above or fall below their ideal levels. Excess voltage can damage equipment, and if voltage is too low some appliances will not work. If supply falls too much below demand grid operators will have to disconnect - black-out - areas to prevent blackout of the whole grid. If the whole grid blacks out, restoring power requires a complex procedure of bringing power stations back into synchronism with each other - each has to run at exactly the same speed (frequency) - whilst re-connecting areas only at a rate that generators can supply them.<br />
<br />
In a grid supplying many consumers, unpredictable short-term fluctuations in demand are inevitable: people turn lights, heaters, kettles and cookers on and off as they need. On a large grid connecting thousands or millions of consumers such random short-term fluctuations tend to even out, but aggregate into more slowly varying and predictable changes: peaks in the morning when people get up and in the evening when they return from work and cook, peaks during breaks in popular TV broadcasts, fluctuations in heating demand in response to changing weather conditions etc. Over a period of months demand varies as more power is demanded for winter heating in cold climates, and/or summer air conditioning in warmer regions.<br />
<br />
In grids comprising mostly thermal (coal, gas and nuclear) and hydroelectric power plants, short-term random fluctuations are evened out by the flywheel effect of the massive spinning alternators of these plants. This 'spinning reserve' can make up or take up the difference between power generation and demand for a few seconds, with relatively modest, acceptable changes in voltage and frequency. Over longer periods the grid operators have to increase or decrease supply to match demand. Hydro can respond in a matter of seconds, gas and coal more slowly. Nuclear can respond more slowly still, and is usually run at a constant rate with no variation in output.<br />
<br />
The other way to balance supply with demand is to vary demand, where possible. This has for many decades been done to even out day- and night-time demands by offering lower off-peak tariffs which consumers can take advantage of by running water heaters, storage heaters, washing machines etc when electricity is more plentiful. Some heavy industrial consumers of electricity also participate in similar schemes. This sort of arrangement particularly suits grids with large amounts of nuclear and/or wind generation. With modern electronics built into smarter appliances there is the potential to increase the responsiveness of electricity demands to supply e.g. freezers can draw more power and run colder during times of surplus and reduce their consumption during times of high demand.<br />
<br />
Intermittent renewables - wind, solar PV, wave and tide - present challenges to grid operation, partly because grid operators have to cope with the uncontrollable variability to supply as well as variations in demand, and partly because they reduce the amount of spinning reserve in the system.<br />
<br />
Compensating for variations in intermittent renewables' supply is accomplished by maintaining a reserve of fossil fuelled power stations - running at below capacity and able to increase or decrease power to complement the renewables' output. This limits the degree of decarbonsisation possible since even the biggest offshore wind turbines produce energy only about half the time on average, so fossil fuels have to supply the remainder. Also when fossil fuelled power stations are running below full capacity they're less efficient than when they run flat out, and their carbon emissions are correspondingly higher. To achieve deep decarbonisation with intermittent renewables requires either a means of storing energy when the wind is blowing, sun shining etc, or massive transmission lines over inter-continental distances to ship energy from areas where there is wind/sun etc to those where there is none. Either of these solutions requires not only huge amounts of generation capacity but also orders of magnitude greater resources than currently exist, and have problems of cost, availability of raw materials, and/or political issues.<br />
<br />
The problem of spinning reserve is more easily tackled. Huge battery installations such as Tesla's Big South Australian Battery are capable of responding to demands to store or supply power very quickly, giving short-term stability to the grid and responding quickly to sudden changes until slower-responding plants can take over. Many of these frequency service installations are being added to grids where intermittent non-spinning supplies make a significant proportion of capacity.<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[:Category:Chemical fuels|Chemical fuels]]<br />
<br />
== General ==<br />
<br />
[http://withouthotair.com/c26/page_186.shtml Fluctuations and Storage] David MacKay; Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_energy_storage_projects List of energy storage projects] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[http://energystorage.org/ Energy Storage Association]<br />
<br />
UK [http://www.electricitystorage.co.uk/ Energy Storage Network]<br />
<br />
[http://www.energy-storage.news/ Energy Storage News]<br />
: News, analysis and opinion on energy storage technologies<br />
<br />
[http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/13/distributed-energy-storage-revenue-exceed-16-5-billion-2024/ Distributed Energy Storage Revenue To Exceed $16.5 Billion By 2024] Joshua S Hill; CleanTechnica; 13 Jan 2015<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/is-large-scale-energy-storage-dead/ Is large-scale energy storage dead?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 8 Apr 2016<br />
: Many countries have committed to filling large percentages of their future electricity demand with intermittent renewable energy, and to do so they will need long-term energy storage in the terawatt-hours range. But the modules they are now installing store only megawatt-hours of energy. Why are they doing this? This post concludes that they are either conveniently ignoring the long-term energy storage problem or are unaware of its magnitude and the near-impossibility of solving it.<br />
<br />
[http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/29/green-energy-doesnt-work-without-energy-storage-that-doesnt-exist-yet/ Green Energy Doesn’t Work Without Energy Storage That Doesn’t Exist Yet] Andrew Follett; Daily Caller; 29 May 2016<br />
<br />
: from [https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/-/investment-in-energy-storage-vital-if-renewables-to-achieve-full-potential Investment in energy storage vital] UEA press release about paper:<br />
:: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261916306419 The value of arbitrage for energy storage: Evidence from European electricity markets] Dimitrios Zafirakis, Konstantinos J. Chalvatzis, Giovanni Baiocchi, Georgios Daskalakis; Applied Energy; 27 May 2016<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/from-liquid-air-to-supercapacitators-energy-storage-is-finally-poised-for-a-breakthrough From liquid air to supercapacitors, energy storage is finally poised for a breakthrough] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 4 Feb 2016<br />
<br />
[http://innovation.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/innovation/en/Projects/tier-2-projects/Smarter-Network-Storage-(SNS)/ Smarter Network Storage] UK Power Networks<br />
: We are undertaking trials to improve understanding of the economics of electrical energy storage. The learning gained will help improve cost effectiveness and provide a more sustainable, efficient and flexible way to reinforce networks.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/grid-scale-storage-of-renewable-energy-the-impossible-dream/ Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 20 Nov 2017<br />
: The utopian ambition for variable renewable energy is to convert it into uniform firm capacity using energy storage. Here we present an analysis of actual UK wind and solar generation for the whole of 2016 at 30 minute resolution and calculate the grid-scale storage requirement. In order to deliver 4.6 GW uniform and firm RE supply throughout the year, from 26 GW of installed capacity, requires 1.8 TWh of storage. We show that this is both thermodynamically and economically implausible to implement with current technology.<br />
<br />
: ''Considers pumped hydro, battery and chemical conversion & storage''<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/battery-storage-in-perspective-solving-1-of-the-problem/ Battery storage* in perspective – solving 1% of the problem] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 19 Feb 2018<br />
: The energy world is fixated on the “huge” amounts of battery storage presently being installed to back up slowly-increasing levels of intermittent renewables generation. The feeling seems to be that as soon as enough batteries are installed to take care of daily supply/demand imbalances we will no longer need conventional dispatchable energy – solar + wind + storage will be able to do it all. Here I take another look at the realities of the situation using what I hope are some telling visual examples of what battery storage will actually do for us. As discussed in previous posts it will get us no closer to the vision of a 100% renewables-powered world than we are now.<br />
<br />
: *Note: “Battery storage” covers all storage technologies currently being considered, including thermal, compressed air, pumped hydro etc. Batteries are, however, the flavor of the moment and are expected to capture the largest share of the future energy storage market.<br />
<br />
== Data ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.energystorageexchange.org/ DOE Global Energy Storage Database]<br />
: The DOE Global Energy Storage Database provides free, up-to-date information on grid-connected energy storage projects and relevant state and federal policies.<br />
: All information is vetted through a third-party verification process. All data can be exported to Excel or PDF. Our hope is that this site will contribute to the rapid development and deployment of energy storage technologies.<br />
<br />
[http://www.r-e-a.net/upload/rea_uk_energy_storage_report_november_2015_-_final.pdf Energy Storage in the UK - An Overview] Renewable Energy Association; Winter 2015-16<br />
<br />
[http://www.slideshare.net/cedricchristensen/electric-power-conference-2014-41-final Energy Storage Procurement in California - APR2014] 24 Jul 2014<br />
<br />
[https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter4.pdf SR15 Chapter 4] IPCC<br />
4.3.1.4 Energy Storage<br />
<br />
The growth in electricity storage for renewables has been around Grid Flexibility Resources (GFR) that<br />
would enable several places to source more than half their power from non-hydro renewables (Komarnicki,<br />
2016). Ten types of GFRs within smart grids have been developed largely since AR5 as renewables have<br />
tested grid stability (Blaabjerg et al., 2004; IRENA, 2013; IEA, 2017d; Majzoobi and Khodaei, 2017) though<br />
demonstrations of how to do this without hydro or natural gas-based power back-up are still needed. Pumped<br />
hydro comprised 150 GW of storage capacity in 2016, and grid-connected battery storage just 1.7 GW, but<br />
the latter grew between 2015 to 2016 by 50% (REN21, 2012). Battery storage has been the main growth<br />
feature in energy storage since AR5 (Breyer et al., 2017). This appears to the result of significant cost<br />
reductions due to mass production for Electric Vehicles (EVs) (Nykvist and Nilsson, 2015; Dhar et al.,<br />
2017). Although costs and technical maturity look increasingly positive, the feasibility of battery storage is<br />
challenged by concerns over the availability of resources and the environmental impacts of its production<br />
(Peters et al., 2017). Lithium, a common element in the earth’s crust, does not appear to be restricted and<br />
large increases in production have happened in recent years with eight new mines in Western Australia<br />
where most lithium is produced (GWA, 2016). Emerging battery technologies may provide greater<br />
efficiency and recharge rates (Belmonte et al., 2016) but remain significantly more expensive due to speed<br />
and scale issues compared to lithium ion batteries (Dhar et al., 2017; IRENA, 2017a).<br />
<br />
Research and demonstration of energy storage in the form of thermal and chemical systems continues, but<br />
large scale commercial systems are rare (Pardo et al., 2014). Renewably derived synthetic liquid (like<br />
methanol and ammonia) and gas (like methane and hydrogen) are increasingly being seen as a feasible<br />
storage options for renewable energy (producing fuel for use in industry during times when solar and wind<br />
are abundant) (Bruce et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2010; Ezeji, 2017) but, in the case of carbonaceous storage<br />
media, would need a renewable source of carbon to make a positive contribution to GHG reduction (von der<br />
Assen et al., 2013; Abanades et al., 2017) (see also Section 4.3.4.5). The use of electric vehicles as a form of<br />
storage has been modelled and evaluated as an opportunity, and demonstrations are emerging (Dhar et al.,<br />
2017; Green and Newman, 2017a), but challenges to upscaling remain.<br />
<br />
== Power-gas-power ==<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas Power to Gas] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[http://science-and-energy.org/slides-videos/ Science for Energy Scenarios] <br />
: 3rd Science and Energy Seminar at Ecole de Physique des Houches, March 6th-11th 2016<br />
: presentations on EROI, power-gas-power, intermmittency, grids, etc<br />
<br />
* [http://science-and-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Power-to-gas-to-power-3rd-Science-and-Energy-Seminar-at-Ecole-de-Physique.pdf "Power to gas to Power" Solution or dead lock?] Georges Sapy, electrical engineer<br />
:: discusses losses in conversion to and storage of H2, CH4 (circa 60% efficiency for H2, 39% for CH4)<br />
<br />
== Battery ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battery-storage-needed-to-expand-renewable-energy/ Battery Storage Needed to Expand Renewable Energy] Umair Irfan; Scientific American; 13 Feb 2015<br />
: The U.S. Department of Energy is exploring energy storage strategies to accelerate the use of wind and solar power<br />
<br />
[http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/uc-irvine-invents-nanowire-battery.html UC Irvine invents nanowire battery material with off-the-charts charging capacity] Next Big Future; 20 Apr 2016<br />
: University of California, Irvine researchers have invented nanowire-based battery material that can be recharged hundreds of thousands of times, moving us closer to a battery that would never require replacement. The breakthrough work could lead to commercial batteries with greatly lengthened lifespans for computers, smartphones, appliances, cars and spacecraft. Scientists have long sought to use nanowires in batteries. Thousands of times thinner than a human hair, they’re highly conductive and feature a large surface area for the storage and transfer of electrons. However, these filaments are extremely fragile and don’t hold up well to repeated discharging and recharging, or cycling. In a typical lithium-ion battery, they expand and grow brittle, which leads to cracking. UCI researchers have solved this problem by coating a gold nanowire in a manganese dioxide shell and encasing the assembly in an electrolyte made of a Plexiglas-like gel. The combination is reliable and resistant to failure. The testing electrode was cycled up to 200,000 times over three months without detecting any loss of capacity or power and without fracturing any nanowires.<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/26/lithium-ion-will-be-tough-to-beat-says-argonne-battery-whiz/ Lithium-Ion Will Be Tough To Beat, Says Argonne Battery Whiz] Jeff McMahon; Forbes; 26 May 2016<br />
: People who are working on next-generation batteries often put lithium-ion down, saying the current technology is too costly, too flammable, or too limited to meet the clean energy and clean transportation demands of the future. But four years into a five-year effort to develop a better battery at Argonne National Laboratory, one Argonne engineer concedes Li-ion will be tough to beat in the marketplace.<br />
<br />
[https://www.good.is/articles/nanobatteries-last-forever UCI Student Accidently Creates A Rechargeable Battery That Lasts 400 Years] Tod Perry; Good; 13 Sep 2016<br />
: .... recent discovery at the University of California, Irvine by doctoral student Mya Le Thai. After playing around in the lab she made a discovery that could lead to a rechargeable battery that lasts up to 400 years. ... Thai coated a set of gold nanowires in manganese dioxide and a Plexiglas-like electrolyte gel. ... nanobattery developed at UCI made it though 200,000 cycles in three months<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/ The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid] James Temple; MIT Technology Review; 27 Jul 2018<br />
: Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
<br />
==== Carrickfergus ====<br />
[http://aesenergystorage.com/2015/07/21/aes-constructing-largest-battery-based-energy-storage-array-united-kingdom/ AES Constructing Largest Battery-Based Energy Storage Array in United Kingdom] AES Energy Storage<br />
: Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland, 20 July 2015 – AES announced today that it has begun construction of its first advanced, battery-based energy storage facility in the United Kingdom. The Kilroot AdvancionTM Energy Storage Array will provide 10 MW of interconnected energy storage, equivalent to 20 MW of flexible resource. The array is expected to begin operations by the end of 2015.<br />
<br />
==== Gigha - redT - redox ====<br />
[http://www.redtenergy.com/case-studies/gigha-utility-scale-storage Utility Scale Storage for Gigha] redT energy<br />
: Thanks to a £3.6m funding award from the UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), redT are currently working on the demonstration and pre-commercialisation of a 1.68MWh version of its grid scale flow battery. The energy storage system is being designed for the remote Scottish Isle of Gigha and will be integrated with the island’s wind farm and deployed with the help of project partners; Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE), EA Technology Ltd., Community Energy Scotland (CES) and Gigha Green Power Ltd. (GGPL). The MWh scale vanadium battery will provide much needed energy storage for a location which has limited grid connection via an ageing subsea cable.<br />
<br />
: The wind farm on Gigha was one of the first community owned grid connected wind farms in Scotland and currently consists of three wind turbines with a combined capacity of 775kW. A fourth turbine of 330kW is being installed, however it will need to operate at an extreme 0.85 power factor to overcome voltage rises and is also constrained to 225kW. Over the 25 year life span of the turbine, this constraint will amount to a loss of 3GWh at a value of around £300,000 and approximately 1.5kt CO2. Furthermore, under the current passive network operating arrangements, the constraint also prevents additional renewable generation capacity from being added to the island, including wind turbines, photo-voltaic panels and tidal stream generators.<br />
<br />
: The MW Scale Energy Storage system to be implemented on Gigha will address the constraint, allowing for a 20% minimum increase in wind energy generation, which will provide additional income for the island.<br />
<br />
: In addition to creating revenue from removing constraints from the wind turbine, the implementation of the redT Energy Storage system could potentially enable:<br />
* The sale of wind energy to the market during peak times and price spikes<br />
* Local backup power supply in the event of network faults<br />
* Further generation connections downstream of the Energy Storage System (ESS)<br />
* Replacement of the fish-farm diesel generators with an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) derived from the ESS - creating environmental benefits and reducing fuel costs. <br />
* Electricity Trading (arbitrage)<br />
* The Dispatch of network services (voltage control, load-shifting for assets)<br />
* The Dispatch of balancing and capacity services such as Frequency Response and Short-Term Operating Reserve (STOR) through an aggregator<br />
<br />
: redT Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries were chosen for the project because of their ability to balance variable generation from renewable sources and its cost effective time shifting. The new VRFB utility scale technology will meet the need for efficient distributed storage, combined with the ability to respond instantly to demand, dispatching energy over a 12-hour duration when required. The all-Vanadium batteries contain no heavy metals, use non-flammable materials and the electrolyte is completely recyclable. This 2.5-year project aims to demonstrate the utility scale system in a demanding UK application and to develop the technology further towards the goal of full scale commercial manufacture.<br />
<br />
==== Frequency stabilisation ====<br />
<br />
[https://www.theengineer.co.uk/uks-fastest-energy-storage-system-launches/ UK’s fastest energy storage system launches] The Engineer; 17 Mar 2016 <br />
: A £4m battery-based energy storage facility has launched today at Willenhall substation near Wolverhampton as part of research led by Sheffield University. The system, which the university said is the UK’s fastest as well as one of its largest, is capable of responding to National Grid demands in 4/10ths of a second. It is also the first in the country to use a lithium titanate battery. Toshiba’s 2MW battery is made up of 21,120 cells and can supply energy to 3,000 homes for 20 minutes. It was chosen for its rapid charge and discharge times, its long lifetime and its safety.<br />
<br />
===== UK National Grid Enhanced Frequency Response =====<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/26/eight-uk-battery-projects-win-funding-from-national-grid/ How Britain will keep the lights on] Emily Gosden, energy editor ; Daily Telegraph; 26 Aug 2016<br />
: Eight new battery storage projects are to be built around the UK after winning contracts worth £66m to help National Grid keep power supplies stable as more wind and solar farm are built. EDF Energy, E.On and Vattenfall were among the successful companies chosen to build new lithium ion batteries with a combined capacity of 200 megawatts (MW), under a new scheme to help Grid balance supply and demand within seconds.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/biggest-battery-contracts-move-u-k-closer-to-grid-scale-storage Britain Is About to Take a Great (Battery) Leap Forward] Jessica Shankleman; Bloomberg Technology; 25 Aug 2016<br />
: Grid-scale electricity storage will move closer to commercial reality on Friday when the U.K.’s grid operator offers contracts to companies to help balance the network, a key measure needed to help balance increasing supply from renewables. National Grid Plc will announce the winners of a bidding round for as much as 200 megawatts of storage capacity, which is about the size of a small power plant. It’s likely to be the storage industry’s biggest award this year in global market expected to install $5.1 billion of equipment in 2020, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Storage plays a key role in the greening of utilities’ networks by allowing grid managers to handle higher volumes of intermittent power from the wind and sun.<br />
: Any winning bidder of National Grid’s tender must be able to supply power within 1 second and deliver 100 percent of the capacity it offered for at least 15 minutes.<br />
: ''200MW * 15m = 50MWh''<br />
<br />
==== Moxia ====<br />
<br />
[http://www.moixa.com/ Moxia]<br />
: UK 2 and 3kWh batteries in wall-hung box<br />
<br />
=== US ===<br />
<br />
<br />
==== Vaca system / CAISO / Sodium-Sulphur batteries ====<br />
[http://tdworld.com/blog/caiso-battery-storage-trial CAISO Battery Storage Trial] Todd "Ike" Kiefer; Transmission and Distribution World / The Grid Optimization Blog; 21 Nov 2016<br />
: Despite all the hype and giga-promises, there has yet been no breakthrough in electricity storage technology that delivers all the requisite features of high energy density, high power, long life, high roundtrip efficiency, safe handling, and competitive cost. Batteries are still a long way from being a substitute for fossil fuel power plants or any other actual power generators because of physical and economic limits of current technology. <br />
<br />
==== Tesla ====<br />
[http://www.powervault.co.uk/technical/technical-specifications/ Powervault tech specs]<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/05/01/why-teslas-powerwall-is-just-another-toy-for-rich-green-people/ Why Tesla's Powerwall Is Just Another Toy For Rich Green People] Forbes<br />
<br />
[http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Tesla-Discontinues-10kWh-Powerwall-Home-Battery Tesla Discontinues 10-Kilowatt-Hour Powerwall Home Battery] Julia Pyper; Green Tech Media; 18 Mar 2016<br />
: Tesla has quietly removed all references to its 10-kilowatt-hour residential battery from the Powerwall website, as well as the company’s press kit. The company's smaller battery designed for daily cycling is all that remains.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/tesla-wins-utility-contract-to-supply-grid-scale-battery-storage-after-porter-ranch-gas-leak Tesla Wins Massive Contract to Help Power the California Grid] Tim Randall; Bloomberg; 15 Sep 2016<br />
: Tesla Motors Inc. will supply 20 megawatts (80 megawatt-hours) of energy storage to Southern California Edison as part of a wider effort to prevent blackouts by replacing fossil-fuel electricity generation with lithium-ion batteries.<br />
<br />
=== South Australia ===<br />
[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/elon-musk-wins-bet-finishing-massive-battery-installation-in-100-days/ Elon Musk wins bet, finishing massive battery installation in 100 days] Timothy B. Lee; Ars Technica; 23 Nov 2017<br />
: Tesla has completed construction of a massive 100-megawatt, 129-MWh battery installation in South Australia. The new facility boasts the largest megawatt rating for any grid-connected battery installation in the world.<br />
<br />
[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tesla-fulfills-australia-battery-bet-whats-that-mean-industry Tesla Fulfilled Its 100-Day Australia Battery Bet. What’s That Mean for the Industry?] JULIAN SPECTOR; GTM; 27 Nov 2017<br />
: Musk later noted that the cost of losing that bet would have been around $50 million, Business Insider reports. <br />
<br />
[http://uk.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-just-met-his-100-day-deadline-on-a-50-million-bet-2017-11 Elon Musk just won a $50 million bet for building the world's largest lithium-ion battery in 100 days] Simon Thomsen; Business Insider Australia; 23 Nov 2017<br />
: Musk said that if he failed to meet the deadline, the project would have cost him "$50 million or more."<br />
<br />
==== performance / FCAS ====<br />
<br />
[http://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-outsmarts-lumbering-coal-units-after-loy-yang-trips-70003/ Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units after Loy Yang trips] Giles Parkinson; Renew Economy; 19 Dec 2017<br />
: The Tesla big battery is having a big impact on Australia’s electricity market, far beyond the South Australia grid where it was expected to time shift a small amount of wind energy and provide network services and emergency back-up in case of a major problem.<br />
<br />
: Last Thursday, one of the biggest coal units in Australia, Loy Yang A 3, tripped without warning at 1.59am, with the sudden loss of 560MW and causing a slump in frequency on the network.<br />
<br />
: What happened next has stunned electricity industry insiders and given food for thought over the near to medium term future of the grid, such was the rapid response of the Tesla big battery to an event that happened nearly 1,000km away.<br />
<br />
: Even before the Loy Yang A unit had finished tripping, the 100MW/129MWh had responded, injecting 7.3MW into the network to help arrest a slump in frequency that had fallen below 49.80Hertz.<br />
<br />
: Data from AEMO (and gathered above by Dylan McConnell from the Climate and Energy College) shows that the Tesla big battery responded four seconds ahead of the generator contracted at that time to provide FCAS (frequency control and ancillary services), the Gladstone coal generator in Queensland.<br />
<br />
: But in reality, the response from the Tesla big battery was even quicker than that – in milliseconds – but too fast for the AEMO data to record.<br />
<br />
: Importantly, by the time that the contracted Gladstone coal unit had gotten out of bed and put its socks on so it can inject more into the grid – it is paid to respond in six seconds – the fall in frequency had already been arrested and was being reversed.<br />
<br />
: Gladstone injected more than Tesla did back into the grid, and took the frequency back up to its normal levels of 50Hz, but by then Tesla had already put its gun back in its holster and had wandered into the bar for a glass of milk.<br />
<br />
=== technologies ===<br />
<br />
[http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/energy-storage-technologies Energy Storage Technologies] Energy Storage Association<br />
<br />
[https://howwegettonext.com/batteries-not-excluded-f51e0222ff16 Batteries Not Excluded] Simon Parkin; How We Get To Next; 11 Feb 2016<br />
:The supercomputer in your pocket and your next car rely on them — so what will we do if we run out of lithium?<br />
: battery history, chemistry, sustainability<br />
<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/03/us-agency-says-has-beaten-elon-musk-gates-to-holy-grail-battery-storage US agency reaches 'holy grail' of battery storage sought by Elon Musk and Gates] ARPA-E<br />
<br />
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/04/us_hits_battery_storage_holy_grail/ Uncle Sam's boffins stumble upon battery storage holy grail] ARPA-E<br />
<br />
[http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/spanish-company-graphenano-claims.html Spanish company Graphenano claims Graphene Polymer batteries with triple the energy density of lithium ion and commercialization by end of 2016]<br />
<br />
==== Lithium ====<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery Lithium Ion batteries] wikipedia<br />
<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05752-3 Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries] Kostiantyn Turcheniuk, Dmitry Bondarev, Vinod Singhal, Gleb Yushin; Nature Comment ; 25 July 2018<br />
: Reserves of cobalt and nickel used in electric-vehicle cells will not meet future demand. Refocus research to find new electrodes based on common elements such as iron and silicon, urge Kostiantyn Turcheniuk and colleagues.<br />
<br />
==== Flow batteries ====<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery Flow battery] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/redox-flow-batteries Redox Flow Batteries] Energy Storage Association<br />
{{Quote|Redox flow batteries (RFB) represent one class of electrochemical energy storage devices. The name “redox” refers to chemical reduction and oxidation reactions employed in the RFB to store energy in liquid electrolyte solutions which flow through a battery of electrochemical cells during charge and discharge.}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/highly_efficient_grid-scale Highly efficient grid-scale electricity storage at fifth of cost - researchers modify hybrid flow battery electrodes with nanomaterials] University of Warwick; 22 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|Researchers in WMG at the University of Warwick, in collaboration with Imperial College London, have found a way to enhance hybrid flow batteries and their commercial use. The new approach can store electricity in these batteries for very long durations for about a fifth the price of current technologies, with minimal location restraints and zero emissions.<br />
<br />
The researchers enhanced three hybrid flow cells using nitrogen doped graphene (exposed to nitrogen plasma) in a binder-free electrophoresis technique (EPD)<br />
<br />
Wind and solar power are increasingly popular sources for renewable energy. Unfortunately, intermittency issues keep them from connecting widely to the National grid. One potential solution to this problem involves in the deployment of long-duration battery technology, such as the redox flow battery. Despite its great promise the current costs of this system are a key determining factor to real-world adoption. An affordable grid battery should cost £75/kWh, according to the US Department of Energy. Lithium-ion batteries, which lead the charge for grid storage, cost about £130/kWh.<br />
<br />
Now WMG researchers have found a way of enhancing hybrid flow batteries or regenerative fuel cell (RFC) technology that could store electricity for very long durations for about one-fifth the cost of current storage technologies, with flexibility in siting and with minimal environmental impact. The technology combines carbon-based electrodes with economically sourced electrolytes, (manganese or sulphur, which are abundant chemicals in the planet) by means of a simple and yet highly effective electrophoretic deposition of nano-carbon additives (nitrogen-doped graphene) that enhance the electrode durability and performance significantly in highly acidic or alkaline environments.<br />
<br />
The researchers have published their findings in a paper entitled, ‘[https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsami.0c17616 Hybrid Redox Flow Cells with Enhanced Electrochemical Performance via Binderless and Electrophoretically Deposited Nitrogen-Doped Graphene on Carbon Paper Electrodes]’ in the December 2020 edition of the journal ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.<br />
<br />
Dr Barun Chakrabarti, a Research Fellow in WMG at the University of Warwick and one of the lead authors on the paper said:<br />
<br />
“This EPD technique is not only simple but also improves the efficiencies of three different economical hybrid flow batteries thereby increasing their potential for widespread commercial adoption for grid-scale energy storage.”<br />
<br />
The hybrid flow battery’s total chemical cost is about 1/30th the cost of competing batteries, such as lithium-ion systems. Scaled-up technologies may be used to store electricity from wind or solar power, for multiple days to entire seasons, for about £15 to £20 per kilowatt hour. These batteries are also extremely useful for grid-scale load levelling applications as their design is very flexible due to their unique feature of sizing their power independently of their energy.<br />
<br />
The energy density of a hybrid flow battery, especially the polysulphide/air system (S-Air), is 500 times higher than pumped hydroelectric storage. It is also so much more compact and can be placed near any renewable generation.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/12/13/vanadium-flow-batteries-the-energy-storage-breakthrough-weve-needed/ Vanadium-Flow Batteries: The Energy Storage Breakthrough We've Needed] James Conca; Forbes; 13 Dec 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
the new V-flow batteries reduce the cost of storage to about 5¢/kWh.<br />
<br />
UniEnergy Technologies (UET) of Seattle produces the largest MW-scale vanadium flow batteries yet, using a molecule developed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL’s breakthrough was to introduce hydrochloric acid into the electrolyte solution, almost doubling the storage capacity and making the system work over a far greater range of temperatures, from -40°C to 50°C (-40°F to 122°F), removing a large previous cost of maintaining temperature control.<br />
<br />
Presently, the largest installed V-flow battery in the U.S. is a UET 2MW/8MWh (power/total dischargeable energy in a single full charge) system in Washington State at the Snohomish County Public Utility District’s Everett Substation. This vanadium battery can keep the lights on in 1,000 homes for eight hours.<br />
<br />
A V-flow battery system planned for Dalian China by UET's sister company Rongke will soon be the largest battery in the world at 200MW/800MWh.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/new-type-flow-battery-can-store-10-times-energy-next-best-device New type of ‘flow battery’ can store 10 times the energy of the next best device] Robert F. Service; AAAS Science; 27 Nov 2015<br />
: Lithium instead of Vanadium<br />
<br />
''See Gigha above.''<br />
<br />
===== zinc-bromide / Redflow =====<br />
<br />
[http://redflow.com/products/redflow-zbm-2/ ZBM2 – 10KWH FLOW BATTERY] Redflow<br />
<br />
[http://redflow.com/home-redflow-zbm2-energy-system-installation-simon-hackett/ My home Redflow ZBM2 energy system installation by Simon Hackett] Redflow; 28 Nov 2016<br />
<br />
===== Sulfur / Sulphur =====<br />
<br />
[https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/new-sulfur-flow-battery-could-provide-affordable-longterm-grid-storage New Sulfur Flow Battery for Affordable Long-Term Grid Storage] Prachi Patel; IEEE Spectrum; 16 Oct 2017<br />
: With a new battery, researchers at MIT say they have found the sweet spot for energy storage. The energy-dense battery could be the first to compete with the installed cost of pumped hydro and compressed-air storage, which cost around $100 per kilowatt-hour of energy stored. Scaled-up versions of the new battery could store electricity for a fifth of that, at $20/kWh. By comparison, Tesla claims its Gigafactory can produce batteries for around $125/kWh. <br />
<br />
: The new battery might even have what it takes to replace fossil fuel “peaker” plants that can quickly inject power into the grid at high demand times. To compete with peaker plants, we need immense batteries that store energy from wind and solar for multiple days, even months, at an installed cost of around $50/kWh.<br />
<br />
: The device, reported in the journal Joule, is a type of flow battery, in which both the anode and cathode are liquid electrolytes. The anode in this case is sulfur dissolved in water, while the cathode is an aerated liquid salt solution that takes up and releases oxygen.<br />
<br />
: Lithium ions move between the electrolytes, and the salt solution at the cathode takes up or releases oxygen to balance the charge. During discharge, it takes up oxygen and the anode ejects electrons into an external circuit. When the oxygen is released, electrons go back to the anode, recharging the battery.<br />
<br />
==== supercapacitors ====<br />
<br />
[http://www.sunvaultenergy.com/technology/ SunVault Energy]<br />
: claims 80 / 175-200 / 375 WH/kg<br />
: > 500 cycles<br />
: "significantly lower - under market" cost<br />
: 90-95% charge depth<br />
: carbon + non-toxic electrolyte<br />
<br />
[https://phys.org/news/2016-07-fast-charging-everlasting-battery-power-graphene.html Fast-charging everlasting battery power from graphene] Han Lin; Phys.org; 19 Jul 2016<br />
: Swinburne University researchers have invented a new, flexible energy-storage technology that could soon replace the batteries in our cars, phones and more. Han Lin's new super battery (actually, a supercapacitor) can store as much energy per kilogram as a lithium battery, but charges in minutes, or even seconds, and uses carbon instead of expensive lithium.<br />
<br />
: Previously, a major problem with supercapacitors has been their low capacity to store energy. But Han has overcome this problem by using sheets of a form of carbon known as graphene, which has a very large surface area available to store energy. Large scale production of the graphene that would be needed to produce these supercapacitors was once unachievable, but using a 3-D printer, Han is able to produce graphene at a low cost.<br />
<br />
=== Economics & feasibility ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8237 A Nation-Sized Battery] [http://www.theoildrum.com/pdf/theoildrum_8237.pdf pdf] Tom Murphy - associate professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego.<br />
: what it would take to build battery-based storage for the US for 100% renewables<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-holy-grail-of-battery-storage/ The Holy Grail of Battery Storage] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 18 Aug 2016<br />
: A recent [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/10/holy-grail-of-energy-policy-in-sight-as-battery-technology-smash/ Telegraph article] claims that storage battery technology is now advancing so fast that “we may never again need to build 20th Century power plants in this country, let alone a nuclear white elephant such as Hinkley Point” and that the “Holy Grail of energy policy” that will make this solution economically feasible – a storage battery cost of $100/kWh – will be reached in “relatively short order”. This brief post shines the cold light of reality on these claims by calculating battery storage costs based on the storage requirements for specific cases estimated in previous Energy Matters posts. It is found that installing enough battery storage to convert intermittent wind/solar generation into long-term baseload generation increases total capital costs generally by factors of three or more for wind and by factors of ten or more for solar, even at $100/kWh.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-251/ Blowout Week 251] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; 20 Oct 2018<br />
: Tesla [...] has just increased the price of its 13.5 kWh Powerwall unit plus supporting hardware from $US6,600 ($489/kWh) to $7,800 ($578/kWh)<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-wind-solar-power-batteries-included/ The cost of wind & solar power: batteries included] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 22 Nov 2018<br />
: For some time now we here on Energy Matters have been harping on about the prohibitive costs of long-term battery storage. Here, using two simplified examples, I quantify these costs. The results show that while batteries may be useful for fast-frequency response applications they increase the levelized costs of wind and solar electricity by a factor of ten or more when used for long-term – in particular seasonal – storage. Obviously a commercial-scale storage technology much cheaper than batteries is going to be needed before the world’s electricity sector can transition to intermittent renewables. The problem is that there isn’t one.<br />
<br />
=== Battery raw materials ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/batteries-mine-production-lithium-and-the-cobalt-crunch/ Batteries, mine production, lithium and the “cobalt crunch”] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 29 Aug 2018<br />
: Growth in Li-ion batteries depends on a number of imponderables, such as how rapidly the world converts to electric vehicles, how quickly battery manufacturing capacity can be ramped up and where the electricity to power millions of EVs will come from. This post ignores these issues, concentrating instead on the question of whether the mining sector can increase production of the metals and minerals needed to support a high-battery-growth scenario, and without running out of reserves. The data are not good enough to reach a firm conclusion, but the main uncertainty seems to be whether cobalt production from the Congo, which presently supplies over half of global demand, can be relied on. Lithium and cobalt reserves will not be exhausted in the time frame considered (out to 2030) but will be close to it if no additional reserves are discovered.<br />
<br />
== Hybrid ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/fuel-cell-batteries-for-your-home Seasonal Storage for Homes? German Firm Sells Residential Batteries Tied to Fuel Cells] JASON DEIGN; GreenTech Media; 26 Mar 2018<br />
: A German firm is aiming to help homes obtain year-round self-produced renewable energy with a hybrid storage system combining batteries with hydrogen.<br />
<br />
: Zeyad Abul-Ella, managing director and founder of Berlin-based Home Power Solutions (HPS), said his company’s Picea all-in-one unit, which went on sale this month, “has a hundred times more storage capacity with twice the output” of competing systems.<br />
<br />
: The system deliverssolar-powered heating and ventilation as well as electricity, the company said. It comes with a guarantee that customers can service 100 percent of their own energy requirements from their own solar panels, which are not included.<br />
<br />
: Under the hood, the Picea system contains lead-gel batteries and a fuel cell, electrolyzer, solar charge controller, inverter, hydrogen tank, heat exchanger and storage, ventilation unit and energy management system.<br />
<br />
: It has a peak electrical output of 20 kilowatts, a continuous power rating of 8 kilowatts, and can store energy for thermal, daily and seasonal use, according to a product data sheet. The daily storage capacity amounts to 25 kilowatt-hours.<br />
<br />
: The Picea’s thermal storage tank, meanwhile, can deliver up to 45 kilowatt-hours, with 350 kilowatt-hours to 1 megawatt-hour of seasonal storage capacity, presumably delivered through hydrogen.<br />
<br />
: The technology mix is designed to allow the Picea to keep a household running off solar and battery storage in summer, while storing up enough hydrogen to cover energy use over the winter.<br />
<br />
: Overall, the system, which will start shipping in the fourth quarter of 2018, is expected to deliver between 3 and 6 megawatt-hours of energy a year.<br />
<br />
: This should be enough to satisfy the needs of a four-person German household, which the German Federal Environmental Agency calculates would use around 4 megawatt-hours a year, according to HPS. <br />
<br />
: On launch, the company said Picea pilot installations were running “in a range of environments.”<br />
<br />
: Abul-Ella said the first 50 Piceas were being sold for €54,000 ($66,550), excluding sales tax. Installation costs “will be charged separately by the distribution partners, in line with usual practice,” Abul-Ella said.<br />
<br />
: Given that the German Association of Energy and Water Industries says a typical three-person home in Germany now spends €85.80 ($105.70) a month on energy, that means a payback period of more than 50 years.<br />
<br />
: And this price does not include the cost of a solar array.<br />
<br />
== Hydro / pumped hydro ==<br />
<br />
[http://withouthotair.com/c26/page_191.shtml Pumped Storage] SEWTHA<br />
<br />
[http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Pumped_storage Pumped Storage] Energy Education<br />
<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc Assessment of the European potential for pumped hydropower energy storage - A GIS-based assessment of pumped hydropower storage potential] Marcos Gimeno-Gutiérrez, Roberto Lacal-Arántegui; European Commission JRC Scientific and Policy Reports; 2013<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35666993 'Store more energy in water', says Scottish Power]<br />
dodgy figures<br />
<br />
[http://www.electricmountain.co.uk/Dinorwig-Power-Station Dinorwig Power Station] <br />
: c. 340MW (?)<br />
: Synchronised and spinning-in-air emergency load pick-up rate from standby: 0 to 1,320 MW in 12 seconds<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruachan_Power_Station Cruachan Power Station] (aka "Hollow Mountain")<br />
: The station is capable of generating 440 megawatts (590,000 hp) of electricity from four turbines<br />
: When the top reservoir is full, Cruachan can operate for 22 hours before the supply of water is exhausted<br />
: ''Therefore capacity = 440 * 22 = 9680MWh''<br />
<br />
=== Norway ===<br />
[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Norway-Could-Provide-20000-MW-of-Energy-Storage-to-Europe Norway Could Provide 20,000MW of Energy Storage to Europe] Mike Stone; Green Tech Media; 10 Aug 2015<br />
: Norway has a lot of hydroelectric plants: a total of 937 of them, which provide a population of 5 million with around 98 percent of its electricity. In fact, the Scandinavian country is home to roughly half of all the hydroelectric water storage reservoirs in Europe.<br />
<br />
: This vast system could also offer a Europe a substantial amount of energy storage -- up to 20 gigawatts of it -- if an ambitious scheme currently being proposed can overcome political and social hurdles and get the necessary funding. That’s according to Kaspar Vereide, an engineer at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. And his models suggest it could all be achieved in seven years.<br />
<br />
[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-norway-cant-become-europes-battery-pack Why Norway Can’t Become Europe’s Battery Pack] Jason Deign; Green Tech Media; 13 Mar 2017<br />
: New research casts doubt on the view that pumped hydro power could allow Norway to act as battery pack for other parts of Europe.<br />
<br />
: Dr. Björn Peters, a German energy investor turned researcher, says that even though Norway’s hydro capacity is “huge,” most of it is in fact needed to power Norway. “Theoretically, Norwegian electricity storage would be sufficient to compensate for the fluctuations in solar and wind energy in Germany, even if Germany was supplied solely by sun and wind energy,” he said. “However, since 2002 an average of about 44 terawatt-hours had to be stored between the summer and winter in Norway. The lowest and highest filling levels of the reservoir lakes were [between] about 15 terawatt-hours and slightly over 77 terawatt-hours.” This means nearly all the country’s 82 terawatt-hours of storage was used by Norwegians, Peters said. <br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
<br />
[http://renews.biz/104430/uk-hydro-storage-is-undervalued/ UK hydro storage is ‘undervalued’] RE News; 4 Oct 2016<br />
: There needs to be a radical overhaul of the way pumped storage hydro’s benefits are quantified to reflect the value it can bring to the electricity system, according to a new report by DNV GL. The report – ‘The Benefits of Pumped Storage Hydro to the UK’ – was funded by the Scottish Government, SSE and ScottishPower and makes several recommendations to encourage the expansion of the technology. There needs to be a radical overhaul of the way pumped storage hydro’s benefits are quantified to reflect the value it can bring to the electricity system, according to a new report by DNV GL. The report – ‘The Benefits of Pumped Storage Hydro to the UK’ – was funded by the Scottish Government, SSE and ScottishPower and makes several recommendations to encourage the expansion of the technology.<br />
<br />
=== Strath Dearn ===<br />
<br />
[https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/worlds-biggest-ever-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme-for-scotland/ World’s biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro-scheme, for Scotland?] Scottish Scientist; 15 Apr 2015<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-loch-ness-monster-of-energy-storage/ The Loch Ness Monster of Energy Storage] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 22 May 2015<br />
: further comments on Strath Dearn<br />
<br />
=== Glenmuckloch ===<br />
[http://www.buccleuch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Glenmuckloch-Non-Technical-Summary_2015_low-resolution.pdf Glenmuckloch Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme] Glenmuckloch Pumped Storage Hydro Ltd; Dec 2015<br />
: Non-Technical Summary<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-glenmuckloch-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme/ The Glenmuckloch Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 12 Dec 2016<br />
: Scotland is to get a new pumped storage hydro scheme, not in the Highlands but in the Scottish Borders. With a capacity of 400 MW and an estimated 1.7 GWh of storage this plant can make a meaningful 4 hour contribution to peak generation every day. But wooly''[sic]'' arguments made about smoothing intermittent renewables makes it unclear if this commendable strategy is the intended use.<br />
<br />
=== Dubai ===<br />
<br />
[https://electrek.co/2016/12/23/dubai-to-build-persian-gulfs-first-hydroelectric-plant-880-million-gallon-battery/ Dubai to build Persian Gulf’s first hydroelectric plant, 880 million gallon ‘battery’] Michael Kowalczuk; electrek; 23 Dec 2016<br />
: The plant will make use of the 1,716 million gallons water stored in the Hatta Dam to generate electricity. It will also see the construction of an upper reservoir that will be built in the mountain 300 meters above dam level, which will be able to store up to 880 million gallons. The 250 MW power station will make use of falling water passing through turbines to generate electricity during peak hours. During off-peak hours, the station will utilize solar energy to pump water back up to the upper reservoir.<br />
<br />
=== Chile - Valhalla ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-valhalla-solar-pumped-hydro-project/ The Valhalla solar/pumped hydro project] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 27 Dec 2017<br />
: When and if it gets built the Valhalla project will consist of a 600 MW solar farm and a 300 MW pumped hydro plant which, it is claimed, will in combination deliver continuous baseload power to Northern Chile. If the project works as planned it will indeed deliver continuous baseload power, but only enough to fill about 5% of Northern Chile’s baseload demand. However, it would be the first to demonstrate that baseload power can be generated from a utility-scale PV plant. Development is presently on hold while Valhalla seeks $1.2 billion in financing.<br />
<br />
: The Valhalla project will send intermittent generation from the 600 MW Cielos de Tarapacá solar PV farm to the 300 MW Espejo de Tarapacá pumped hydro plant in order to convert it into baseload power.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-chiles-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/ How Chile’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 3 Jan 2018<br />
: If pumped hydro plants that use the sea as the lower reservoir can be put into large-scale operation Chile would be able to install at least 10 TWh of pumped hydro storage along its northern coast. With it Chile could convert enough intermittent solar into dispatchable form to replace all of its current fossil fuel generation, and at a levelized cost of electricity (provisionally estimated at around $80/MWh) that would be competitive with most other dispatchable generation sources. Northern Chile’s impressive pumped hydro potential is a result of the existence of natural depressions at elevations of 500m or more adjacent to the coast that can hold very large volumes of sea water and which form ready-made upper reservoirs.<br />
<br />
=== Australia - Snowy 2.0 ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/09/higher-electricity-bills-if-snowy-20-hydro-not-built-says-frydenberg Higher electricity bills if Snowy 2.0 hydro not built, says Frydenberg] Paul Karp; The Guardian; 9 Jan 2018<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme would add 2,000 megawatts of capacity to the existing hydro plants and 350,000MW hours of storage.<br />
<br />
Frydenberg said this was the equivalent of 2,700 of South Australia’s big batteries or $180bn of Tesla power walls.<br />
<br />
The project’s feasibility study, released in December, found that despite costing up to $4.5bn it would still be economically viable.<br />
<br />
Addressing the fact that the estimated $2bn cost of transmission to connect Snowy 2.0 to the grid is not included, Frydenberg said poles and wires “are typically regulated assets that are built by the operator”.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/ About Snowy 2.0] website<br />
<br />
=== Great Lakes ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-pumped-hydro-storage-potential-of-the-great-lakes/ The pumped hydro storage potential of the Great Lakes] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 12 Feb 2018<br />
: The potential energy contained in the waters of the Great Lakes amounts to approximately six thousand terawatt hours, enough to supply the US and Canada with electricity for an entire year were the lakes to be drained to sea level. This of course will never happen, but there may be potential for partial utilization of the resource. A pumped hydro system that uses Lakes Huron and Michigan as the upper reservoir and Lake Ontario as the lower could theoretically generate 10 terawatt-hours, or more, of seasonal energy storage without changing lake levels significantly. The most likely show-stopper is the increased likelihood of flooding in the lower St. Lawrence River during pumped hydro discharge cycles. (Inset: Niagara falls runs dry in 1969).<br />
<br />
=== USA / Hoover Dam ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-hoover-dam-pumped-hydro-proposal/ The Hoover Dam pumped hydro proposal] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 1 Aug 2018<br />
: The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) plans to add a pumped hydro system to the existing Hoover dam hydro plant to help store California’s excess solar and wind generation and to increase the dam’s capacity factor, which is currently around 20%. As far as I know this would make the Hoover dam the world’s first hydro plant to combine both conventional and pumped hydro. No project details are presently available, but there is enough background information to scope out what the project might involve and whether it will justify its reported $3 billion price tag. The results show that numerous technical, legal, and environmental issues will have to be resolved before the project can go ahead, and if it does it will store only a small fraction of California’s growing intermittent renewable surpluses. It seems that the benefits will not justify the cost. <br />
<br />
=== Other Seawater Pumped Storage locations ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-seawater-pumped-hydro-potential-of-the-world/ The seawater pumped hydro potential of the world] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 18 Apr 2018<br />
: As discussed in numerous previous posts the world will need immense amounts of energy storage to transition to 100% renewables, or anywhere close to it, and the only technology that offers any chance of obtaining it is sea water pumped hydro (SWPH) storage. Here I consider the practical aspects of SWPH and conclude that there are only three places in the world where a combination of favorable shoreline topography and minimal impacts would allow any significant amount of SWPH to be developed – Chile (discussed here), California (discussed here) and, of all places, Croatia.<br />
<br />
== compressed air ==<br />
<br />
[http://energystorage.org/compressed-air-energy-storage-caes Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)] Energy Storage Association<br />
<br />
[http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-120/issue-4/features/the-intermountain-energy-project.html The Intermountain Energy Storage Project] Power Engineering; 19 Apr 2016<br />
: Compressed Air store in underground salt cavern in Urah for wind power supply for Los Angeles<br />
<br />
=== underwater balloons ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.energybiz.com/magazine/article/460817/storing-energy-underwater-balloons Storing Energy in Underwater Balloons] R. Kress; EnergyBiz Magazine; Spring 2016<br />
: Hydrostor, a Canadian startup that has launched the world's first underwater compressed-air energy-storage solution ... recently brought online a grid-connected, 1-MW system using inflatable balloons positioned 180 feet below the surface of Toronto's Lake Ontario. The system -- capable of holding enough energy to power 330 homes -- will be operated by Toronto Hydro. The utility intends to use the Hydrostor system to store electricity during offpeak hours and then tap into it as demand grows.<br />
<br />
== ARES rail ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11524958/energy-storage-rail The train goes up, the train goes down: a simple new way to store energy] David Roberts; Vox; 28 Apr 2016<br />
: It's from a company called ARES. Here's how it works: <br />
* The train carries big rocks uphill, consuming electricity.<br />
* Then the train carries big rocks downhill, generating electricity.<br />
: That's it. The energy stored by going uphill is released by going downhill.<br />
<br />
[http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/ares-performance ARES Performance]<br />
: An ARES facility will provide the full range of energy storage capabilities generally associated with pumped-storage hydro at approximately 60% of the capital cost and at a significantly higher efficiency. Additionally, ARES has system features which are not traditional to competing forms of energy storage, including but not limited to the following attributes:<br />
<br />
* Reactive Power Production – The shuttle-trains onboard Dual 3-Level Active Rectifier/Invertors are capable of supplying 25% of generated system power as reactive power for grid VAR support in full discharge mode and in excess of 100% of system power as reactive power while synchronized to the grid in standby.<br />
* Heavy Inertia – When in direct grid synchronization the ARES shuttle-trains provide beneficial heavy inertia -- augmenting grid stability against the loss of heavy generating facilities and increasing reliance on solar energy.<br />
* High Efficiency Regulation – While providing Regulation-Up and Regulation-Down support to the ISO a separate dedicated pool of loaded ARES shuttle-trains are available to dispatch from mid-system elevation complying with ISO regulation commands without having to overcome the efficiency loss of operating on pre-stored energy. As such an ARES facility is able perform a round-trip regulation Reg-Up/Reg-Down command at over an 86% operating efficiency.<br />
* Variable Output at Constant Efficiency – Unlike CAES and pumped-storage hydro there is no loss of system pressure during discharge. ARES system efficiency is constant over the full range of discharge and power output. <br />
<br />
[http://s3.amazonaws.com/siteninja/multitenant/assets/20325/files/original/141212_ARES_POD_update.pdf PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ADVANCED RAIL ENERGY STORAGE REGULATION ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT] Dec 2014<br />
* efficiency > 80%<br />
* capacity 50MW 12.5 MWh<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/is-ares-the-solution-to-the-energy-storage-problem/ Is ARES the solution to the energy storage problem?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 6 Apr 2016<br />
: many sources and calculations, extensive discussion of storage technologies in the comments<br />
<br />
== Flywheel ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.energystoragenews.org/category/8/flywheel/ Articles in category: Flywheel] Energy Storage Association<br />
<br />
[http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2011/05/making-the-case-for-spinning-reserve-on-the-grid.html Making the Case for Spinning Reserve on the Grid] Chris Campbell; Renewable Energy World; 31 May 2011<br />
: an[] application for which advanced energy storage is showing significant benefits is spinning reserve. In this application, storage assets can efficiently increase the reliability and improve the responsiveness of the electric power grid. Advanced energy storage can also release traditional generation—otherwise encumbered by an obligation to provide some amount of spinning reserve— to sell more valuable energy output.<br />
<br />
: To help ensure consistent availability and reliability of electricity, utilities keep generation capacity on reserve that can be accessed quickly if there is a disruption to the power supply. For example, if a base load generator or a major transmission line delivering imported power goes down, the utility and/or grid operator will access its reserve capacity to compensate.<br />
<br />
: Typically, this reserve capacity is created by generators that are already synchronized with the power grid but are not operating at full capacity. If backup power is needed, utilities will increase the output of these generators, usually by increasing the rotation of the turbine (hence “spinning reserve”). Typically, a 10-minute response time is a minimum requirement to qualify as spinning, or “operating” reserves.<br />
<br />
: However, leveraging traditional generation assets for creating reserved capacity creates a number of inefficiencies. For example, because these generators are operated below their rated value, the utility is not maximizing their power output that could be used for base load supply. Also, it requires the use of additional fuel to ramp these generators up in the event that their reserved generation potential is needed, which increases emissions while reducing the net efficiency of the power system.<br />
<br />
: Alternatively, energy storage can be implemented onto the power grid as spinning reserve assets. These systems provide a cleaner, more efficient mechanism for utilities to compensate for disruptions to the power supply while enabling them to leverage the full capabilities of their generation assets to deliver base-load power. The most advanced storage solutions are also equipped with sophisticated monitoring and control systems, enabling them to detect disruptions in the power supply and communicate quickly with the grid to near-instantaneously discharge and provide the reserve capacity when it is needed. <br />
<br />
==== Amber Kinetics ====<br />
[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Amber-Kinetics-Turning-Flywheels-into-Multi-Hour-Energy-Storage-Assets Amber Kinetics: Turning Flywheels Into Multi-Hour Energy Storage Assets] Jeff St. John; Greentechmedia; 10 Dec 2015<br />
: Flywheels are a well-known energy storage technology, at least on the power side of the equation. They work by spinning up a heavy disk or rotor to high speeds, and then tapping that rotational energy to discharge high-power bursts of electricity. Companies like Vycon, Active Power and Beacon Power provide emergency ride-through power for buildings, or fast-responding frequency regulation services for grid operators, to name two typical use cases.<br />
<br />
: But it’s a lot harder to use flywheels to store energy for hours at a time. Mainly, that’s due to “coasting losses” -- the inevitable mechanical and electromagnetic forces that slow down a heavy spinning object. These challenges have pretty much relegated long-duration flywheels to research labs -- at least, until now.<br />
<br />
: Last week, Amber Kinetics unveiled a four-hour duration flywheel system, one it says combines the efficiency and flexibility of an electrochemical battery with the durability and lifespan of a simple mechanical device. <br />
<br />
: The core system is a 25-kilowatt-hour flywheel, capable of charging and discharging for more than one duty cycle per day,<br />
<br />
: Ten flywheels in a storage container make up what the company is calling an “energy block,”<br />
<br />
==== Ireland ====<br />
[http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2015/04/europe-s-first-flywheel-storage-plant-debuts.html Europe’s first flywheel storage plant set to debut] Power Engineering International; Apr 2015<br />
: The first grid-connected hybrid flywheel project in Europe has been announced and is to be sited in the Irish midlands.<br />
: SchwungradEnergie Limited is behind the project and will collaborate with the Dept. of Physics and Energy at the University of Limerick and US company, Beacon Power.<br />
<br />
[http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2015/04/irish-flywheel-storage-project-could-prove-crucial-tech-for-eu-green-ambitions.html Irish flywheel storage project could prove crucial tech for EU green ambitions] Diarmaid Williams; Power Engineering International; Apr 2015<br />
: The first grid-connected hybrid flywheel project in Europe could potentially be rolled out across the rest of the European Community once it initially gets off the ground in Ireland.<br />
<br />
: Frank Burke, Technical Director at Schwungrad, the company behind the flywheel project told Power Engineering International that the Irish experience in using the technology to maintain a stable grid as more and more renewable power is loaded on will serve to inform other member states.<br />
<br />
: “With the Irish context there is the pretty high target of going 40 per cent renewable by 2020 which is only a few years away now. One of the problems at the moment is that the system can’t allow more than 50 per cent of non-synchronous renewable generation at any one time; it’s not just renewable, that also applies to the interconnectors because those interconnectors are DC and are not synchronised. The problem is growing every year where a renewable plant is having to be curtailed because they can’t allow more than 50 per cent on.”<br />
<br />
== gravity battery ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.offgridquest.com/energy/gravity-battery-an-illustrated-concept-d Gravity Battery: An illustrated concept detailing the long-term, low-maintenance storage of energy through the use of the force gravity]<br />
<br />
== Thermal ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA-ETSAP%20Tech%20Brief%20E17%20Thermal%20Energy%20Storage.pdf Thermal Energy Storage - Technology Brief] IRENA: International Renewable Energy Agency<br />
<br />
[http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/renewable-energy/heat/thermal-stores Thermal stores] Energy Saving Trust<br />
<br />
The [[Drake Landing]] project uses an interseasonal thermal store<br />
<br />
[http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/programmes/energy-demand/the-future-role-of-thermal-energy-storage-in-the-uk-energy-system-assessment-of-technical-feasibility-and-factors-influencing-adoption.html The Future Role of Thermal Energy Storage in the UK Energy System: An Assessment of the Technical Feasibility and Factors Influencing Adoption] Eames, P., Loveday, D., Haines, V., Romanos, P.; UKERC; 2014<br />
<br />
[http://www.icax.co.uk/thermalbank.html ThermalBanks™ store heat between seasons] ICAX Interseasonal Heat Transfer<br />
<br />
=== Ice store ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.heatpumps.media/features/viessmann-installs-first-uk-energy-from-ice-heating-system Viessmann Installs First UK 'Energy from Ice' Heating System] Heat Pumps Today; 10 Oct 2015<br />
: Heating and refrigeration solutions manufacturer, Viessmann, has installed 'ice store system, in a UK property domestic property, the company announced this week. The innovative system recovers energy from renewable sources to heat or cool buildings, and supplies hot water. Viessmann installed the first system in a new, sustainable housing development at HUF HAUS' UK show room near Weybridge, Surrey. The system takes energy from ice to heat or cool the house. It supplies the energy to heat pumps for heating and hot water in the winter, and for cooling in the summer. The Viessmann system takes energy from water in its ice store. The water temperature drops and, as the energy is withdrawn, the water freezes . The system keeps on taking heat from the ice.<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/07/fighting-air-conditionings-peak-demand-with-thermal-energy-storage/ Fighting Air Conditioning's Peak Demand With Thermal Energy Storage] James Conca; Forbes; 7 Jul 2016<br />
: As we head into the hottest part of summer in the Northern Hemisphere, in what could be the hottest year on record, we barely give a thought to what using air conditioning does to our electricity grid. And what it will do to a hotter world in the future.<br />
<br />
=== Cryogenic ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544215013985 Thermodynamic analysis of a liquid air energy storage system] Giuseppe Leo Guizzi, Michele Manno, Ludovica Maria Tolomei, Ruggero Maria Vitali; Energy; 15 Dec 2015<br />
: The rapid increase in the share of electricity generation from renewable energy sources is having a profound impact on the power sector; one of the most relevant effects of this trend is the increased importance of energy storage systems, which can be used to smooth out peaks and troughs of production from renewable energy sources.<br />
<br />
: Besides their role in balancing the electric grid, energy storage systems may provide also several other useful services, such as price arbitrage, stabilizing conventional generation, etc.; therefore, it is not surprising that many research projects are under way in order to explore the potentials of new technologies for electric energy storage.<br />
<br />
: This paper presents a thermodynamic analysis of a cryogenic energy storage system, based on air liquefaction and storage in an insulated vessel. This technology is attractive thanks to its independence from geographical constraints and because it can be scaled up easily to grid-scale ratings, but it is affected by a low round-trip efficiency due to the energy intensive process of air liquefaction. The present work aims to assess the efficiency of such a system and to identify if and how it can achieve an acceptable round-trip efficiency (in the order of 50–60%).<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261913007216 Load shifting of nuclear power plants using cryogenic energy storage technology] Yongliang Li, Hui Cao, Shuhao Wang, Yi Jin, Dacheng Li, Xiang Wang, Yulong Ding; Applied Energy; Jan 2014<br />
:* Cryogenic energy storage is used for grid scale load shifting of nuclear power plant.<br />
:* Supercritical air liquefaction and re-gasification processes are facilitated by thermal fluid based sensible cold storage.<br />
:* Peak capacity of nuclear power station can be nearly tripled with a roundtrip efficiency of around 70%.<br />
<br />
: Abstract<br />
: To balance the demand and supply at off-peak hours, nuclear power plants often have to be down-regulated particularly when the installations exceed the base load requirements. Part-load operations not only increase the electricity cost but also impose a detrimental effect on the safety and life-time of the nuclear power plants. We propose a novel solution by integrating nuclear power generation with cryogenic energy storage (CES) technology to achieve an effective time shift of the electrical power output. CES stores excess electricity in the form of cryogen (liquid air/nitrogen) through an air liquefaction process at off-peak hours and recover the stored power by expanding the cryogen at peak hours. The combination of nuclear power generation and the CES technologies provides an efficient way to use thermal energy of nuclear power plants in the power extraction process, delivering around three times the rated electrical power of the nuclear power plant at peak hours, thus effectively shaving the peak. Simulations are carried out on the proposed process, which show that the round trip efficiency of the CES is higher than 70% due to the elevated topping temperature in the superheating process and thermal efficiency is also substantially increased.<br />
<br />
=== Pumped Heat Energy Storage (PHES) ===<br />
<br />
[http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-heat-electrical-storage-phes Pumped Heat Electrical Storage (PHES)] Energy Storage Association<br />
: In Pumped Heat Electrical Storage (PHES), electricity is used to drive a storage engine connected to two large thermal stores. To store electricity, the electrical energy drives a heat pump, which pumps heat from the “cold store” to the “hot store” (similar to the operation of a refrigerator). To recover the energy, the heat pump is reversed to become a heat engine. The engine takes heat from the hot store, delivers waste heat to the cold store, and produces mechanical work. When recovering electricity the heat engine drives a generator.<br />
<br />
: PHES requires the following elements: two low cost (usually steel) tanks filled with mineral particulate (gravel-sized particles of crushed rock) and a means of efficiently compressing and expanding gas. A closed circuit filled with the working gas connects the two stores, the compressor and the expander. A monatomic gas such as argon is ideal as the working gas as it heat/cools much more than air for the same pressure increase/drop - this in turn significantly reduces the storage cost. <br />
<br />
==== Isentropic ====<br />
[http://www.isentropic.co.uk/ Isentropic]<br />
{{q| Isentropic Ltd was established to develop Pumped Heat Electricity Storage (PHES), a standalone energy storage system based on a novel, high efficiency reciprocating engine and large scale thermal stores. The long-term market opportunity for energy storage is a low-cost stand-alone system which will allow the grid to respond to variation in load and generation as more power comes from intermittent renewable sources.<br />
<br />
Isentropic Pumped Heat Electricity Storage (PHES) is in development at our UK facility. <br />
<br />
The development of the thermal stores has also led to an energy storage technology integrated into gas power plant: Gas Turbine Integrated (GTI) Storage.<br />
<br />
GTI-Storage offers either Rapid Response or Enhanced Turndown systems, one a fast reacting technology to support frequency response on the grid and the other to provide longer term storage. Both of these technologies are at the development stage.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIxt6nMf-IQ Isentropic PHES Technology Explained] Isentropic Ltd; Youtube; 19 Mar 2014<br />
<br />
==== Molten Silicon ====<br />
<br />
[http://www.afr.com/news/silicon-will-blow-lithium-batteries-out-of-water-says-adelaide-firm-20170207-gu7eg7 Silicon will blow lithium batteries out of water, says Adelaide firm] Ben Potter; Financial Review; 10 Feb 2017<br />
: An Adelaide company has developed a silicon storage device that it claims costs a tenth as much as a lithium ion battery to store the same energy and is eyeing a $10 million public float. 1414 Degrees had its origins in patented CSIRO research and has built a prototype molten silicon storage device which it is testing at its Tonsley Innovation Precinct site south of Adelaide. Chairman Kevin Moriarty says 1414 Degrees' process can store 500 kilowatt hours of energy in a 70-centimetre cube of molten silicon – about 36 times as much energy as Tesla's 14KWh Powerwall 2 lithium ion home storage battery in about the same space. Put another way, he says the company can build a 10MWh storage device for about $700,000. The 714 Tesla Powerwall 2s that would be needed to store the same amount of energy would cost $7 million before volume discounts.<br />
<br />
: The device stores electrical energy by using it to heat a block of pure silicon to melting point – 1414 degrees Celsius. It discharges through a heat-exchange device such as a Stirling engine or a turbine, which converts heat back to electrical energy, and recycles waste heat to lift efficiency.<br />
<br />
==== Hot rocks ====<br />
[https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/1450958/wind-and-solar-can-become-dispatchable-within-three-years Wind and solar can become dispatchable within three years] Leigh Collins; Recharge News; 20 Mar 2018<br />
: A new low-cost storage solution to enable dispatchable wind and solar is set to become commercially available as soon as 2020, and it could revolutionise the world’s energy industry.<br />
<br />
: The technology being simultaneously developed by wind turbine maker Siemens Gamesa and start-up Stiesdal Storage Technologies is a form of thermal energy storage that uses excess renewable energy to heat a “pack bed” of crushed volcanic rocks to as high as 600°C. The stones stay hot for days or weeks simply by being well insulated; then when energy is required, the heat is converted back into electricity and delivered to the grid for as little as €70 ($86.25) per MWh — far cheaper than any gas peaker plant or battery system.<br />
<br />
: Since retiring from Siemens at the end of 2014, Stiesdal has set up his own eponymous company, which is now working on its own version of the “hot-rock” thermal storage system, with a view to building a pilot plant of up to 5MW/120MWh in Denmark next year.<br />
<br />
: “There are two main differences [between the Siemens and Stiesdal systems]. Siemens uses an electric heater to heat the pack bed; I use a heat pump. And then they use a steam system for discharge; I use an air-based system that resembles a gas turbine.<br />
<br />
: “They prefer a system that is a little simpler than what I do, which I also think is a good idea. But I have sort of become seduced by my heat pump system. I really like it.”<br />
<br />
: Both projects use off-the-shelf equipment to keep costs low. Stiesdal uses “dirt cheap” mineral rock wool as the insulation material, saying that his pack bed will only lose 0.5% of its heat per day; SGRE uses “a combination of different materials”, including mineral rock wool, but declined to provide a heat loss figure. Stiesdal uses basalt, the most common rock type on Earth, as the storage medium; SGRE uses a different “common rock”, declining to specify the particular type. Stiesdal says his rocks will reach 550°C, SGRE says its will hit 600°C.<br />
<br />
: ... SGRE will build a commercial pilot project “around 2020” of about 100MWh, probably in partnership with one of those interested utilities — while launching the technology onto the market at the same time.</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=What_is_nuclear_energy%3F&diff=5520What is nuclear energy?2022-10-26T02:25:14Z<p>Sisussman: /* RBMK */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:2]]<br />
[[Category:Nuclear energy]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Banana-Single.jpg|thumb|180px|A banana contains naturally occurring radioactive potassium-40|link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose]]<br />
When we burn coal, oil, gas, wood (and other biomass), hydrogen etc, their chemical molecules react with Oxygen to produce heat (or in the case of fuel cells, electricity). The molecules of fuel get broken down and their constituent atoms re-arranged into different molecules - for example Carbon and Hydrogen atoms in gas or oil break away from each other and combine with Oxygen into water and Carbon Dioxide &ndash; {{H2}}O and {{CO2}}. However the Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms themselves are unchanged.<br />
<br />
Nuclear energy is produced by the splitting or combining of atoms themselves. The combining of atoms &ndash; [[Nuclear fusion | fusion]] &ndash; is the subject of experiment and development, but the technology is probably decades away from producing useful amounts of energy commercially.<br />
<br />
The splitting of atoms is ''fission'' and is the basis of our current nuclear power stations.<br />
<br />
Another process in which atoms split is the spontaneous ''decay'' of radioactive [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope isotopes], including some of the Carbon and Potassium atoms in our bodies (and in bananas!). The heat generated by radioactive decay (of Plutonium) is used to power some spacecraft including the [https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/ Voyagers], and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)#Rover_and_lander_specifications Curiosity] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_(rover)#Design Perseverance] Mars rovers.<br />
<br />
== Fission, fissile, and fertile ==<br />
<br />
[[File:Nuclear fission.svg|thumb|right|upright=0.7|How a neutron splits a Uranium-235 atom producing more neutrons|alt=A diagram showing a chain transformation of uranium-235 to uranium-236 to barium-141 and krypton-92]]<br />
<br />
Uranium has several isotopes, all of which are unstable, making it (weakly) radioactive. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium Wikipedia] for details.)<br />
Naturally occurring Uranium comprises mostly the Uranium-238 isotope, with less than three-quarters of a percent of Uranium-235. U-235 is "fissile": it has a certain probability of spontaneously splitting up into smaller atoms, releasing neutrons in the process. Its splitting up ("fission") can be triggered by it being hit by a neutron, releasing yet more neutrons which can split more U-235 atoms, in a chain reaction. The reaction also releases a lot of energy -- 1.5 million times as much as burning the same weight of coal.<br />
<br />
Plutonium-239 is another fissile isotope. It doesn't occur naturally but it can be produced when neutrons hit Uranium-238 atoms. Isotopes like U-238 and Thorium-232 are known as "fertile" because they can transmute into fissile isotopes (Pu-239 and U-233, respectively) when hit by neutrons.<br />
<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
<br />
=== Fast, moderate and thermal ===<br />
<br />
When a Uranium-235 atom splits, the neutrons it releases travel fast, and they are far less likely to make another U-235 atom split than slower-moving neutrons do. In a mass of concentrated U-235 (such as in an atom bomb) there can be enough neutrons making atoms split and releasing more neutrons etc for a chain reaction to occur, but with less concentrated Uranium (containing less of the U-235 isotope mixed with more of the non-fissile U-238) nothing will happen. (This is why nuclear reactors can't explode like a bomb, and ordinary nuclear reactor fuel can't be used to make a bomb.)<br />
<br />
However if some of the neutrons emitted by splitting U-235 atoms are slowed down before hitting other atoms they are about 1,000 times more likely to make them split and sustain a chain reaction. Slower neutrons are called "thermal" and the slowing-down process is called "moderating". Water and graphite are good at slowing down neutrons so most nuclear reactors use either water or graphite as moderators. Water can also be used to transfer heat from the reaction to provide useful energy.<br />
<br />
=== Breeders and Burners ===<br />
<br />
Fast neutrons can be captured by various atoms and turn them into other isotopes. This process can burn up radioactive isotopes (such as those in the spent fuel of conventional reactors) which are hard to dispose of, and by the process of "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation neutron activation]" it can turn fertile isotopes such as U-238 into fissile ones such as Plutonium-239. The latter process is called "breeding" and is designed to occur in "fast breeder" reactors, although it also happens in conventional ("thermal spectrum") ones.<br />
<br />
== Types of Reactors ==<br />
<br />
There are many sorts of fission reactors which have been tried, and a huge variety which have been proposed. They can be classified by important characteristics:<br />
<br />
* '''Fuel''': Uranium, Plutonium, Thorium etc<br />
** '''Uranium''': natural (around 0.72% uranium-235) or enriched (and by how much: most conventional reactors use material enriched 3 to 5% 235-U)<br />
** '''Fuel''': solid (fuel rods in conventional reactors) or molten (in [[Molten Salt Reactors]])<br />
* '''Thermal spectrum''': Fast or slow neutrons<br />
** ''(For Thermal reactors)'': '''Moderator''': regular (light) water, heavy water, graphite etc<br />
* '''Heat transfer/coolant medium''': gas or liquid<br />
** '''Heat transfer gas''': Argon, Helium, {{CO2}} etc<br />
** '''Heat transfer liquid''': water, metal, salt:<br />
*** '''water''': regular (light water) or heavy water,<br />
*** '''metal''': sodium, lead, mixture etc, <br />
*** '''salt''': fluoride, chloride, mixture (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLiBe FLiBe]) etc<br />
* '''Purpose/product''': experimental, research, production of isotopes, electricity, heat etc<br />
and, last but not least:<br />
* whether they are a paper (or academic) reactor or a real (practical) one.<br />
<br />
{{Template:BlockQuoteGrey| <h3>Paper v. Real reactors</h3><br />
US Admiral [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover Hyman Rickover], who brought nuclear reactors for the navy and civilian power stations to reality, [http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf observed] that:<br />
<br />
An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: <br />
# It is simple.<br />
# It is small.<br />
# It is cheap.<br />
# It is light.<br />
# It can be built very quickly.<br />
# It is very flexible in purpose.<br />
# Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components.<br />
# The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.<br />
<br />
On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics:<br />
# It is being built now.<br />
# It is behind schedule.<br />
# It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items.<br />
# It is very expensive.<br />
# It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems.<br />
# It is large.<br />
# It is heavy.<br />
# It is complicated.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Real Reactors ==<br />
<br />
=== Oklo: naturally occurring reactors ===<br />
<br />
Probably the simplest reactors, and certainly the earliest &mdash; by almost 2 billion years &mdash; were those at Oklo, in Gabon in West Africa.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Gabon Geology Oklo.svg|right|thumb|The geology of the Oklo reactors: <br>(1) reactor zones <br>(2) Sandstone <br>(3) Uranium ore layer <br>(4) Granite]]<br />
<br />
These comprised veins of rock rich in Uranium ore, into which water permeated. The water acted as a moderator, slowing neutrons released by spontaneous fission and creating a chain reaction. The reaction released heat which boiled the water off until the reaction stopped, after which the rocks cooled and water returned to start the reaction again. It is estimated that the reactors ran for hundreds of thousands of years, until the U-235 in the rocks had been burned up too much to sustain further activity.<br />
<br />
The same thing could not happen now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235 Uranium-235] has a half life of about 700 million years compared to 4.5 billion years (about the same as the age of the Earth) for U-238, so whilst natural Uranium now contains only about 0.7% U-235, at the time of the Oklo reactors the concentration was around 3%, which is similar to that used in present-day light-water reactors, and is sufficient to sustain reactions.<br />
<br />
The Oklo reactors probably produced less than 100kW of heat, compared to several GW in modern man-made reactors (about one-third of which gets converted to electricity).<br />
<br />
* In our classification (above) the Oklo reactors were ''solid Uranium fuelled, thermal spectrum using light water as moderator and heat transfer medium (and Real)''.<br />
<br />
''The ''Scientific American'' article ''[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/ The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor]'' by Alex Meshik discusses the discovery of the Oklo (and other) natural reactors, and what we have learned from them. Wikipedia also discusses the Oklo reactors in it article:<br />
"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor Natural nuclear fission reactor]''<br />
<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
<br />
=== Man-made reactors ===<br />
<br />
The earliest artificial reactor was the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1 Chicago Pile] experimental reactor, built as part of the WW2 Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb. It used about 50 tonnes of Uranium, with graphite as a moderator, and produced half a watt of power.<br />
<br />
* We would classify it as a ''solid Uranium fuelled, thermal spectrum, graphite moderated, experimental, real'' reactor.<br />
<br />
==== Pressurised and Boiling Water reactors ====<br />
[[File:PressurizedWaterReactor.gif|right|480px|thumb|Pressurised Water Reactor]]<br />
After WW2 the United States developed a nuclear reactor as propulsion for submarines, allowing them to stay submerged for weeks or months at a time and to cross oceans without surfacing, unlike earlier diesel-electric designs which had limited range and duration while submerged. <br />
<br />
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_(SSN-571) USS Nautilus] was the first nuclear powered submarine, launched in 1954. It used a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor Pressurised Water Reactor]. PWRs were used at the US' first commercial power station at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_Atomic_Power_Station Shippingport] (which also later housed a Thorium-fuelled [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Thermal_breeder_reactor thermal breeder reactor]).<br />
<br />
Pressurised Water Reactors are widely used in the USA, France, Germany, Russia, China, South Korea and many other countries, as well as in military submarines and aircraft carriers, and icebreakers.<br />
<br />
''See also the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's [https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html PWR page]''<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<br />
[[File:BoilingWaterReactor.gif|right|480px|thumb|Boiling Water Reactor]]<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor Boiling Water Reactors] are similar to PWRs but have a simpler heat transfer/cooling system. They are widely used in Japan, including in the Fukushima Daiichi reactors which suffered [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster meltdowns] after being hit by the tsunami generated by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami 2011 Tohoku earthquake].<br />
<br />
''See also the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's [https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/bwrs.html BWR page]''<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<br />
* PWRs and BWRs are ''solid, low-enriched-Uranium fuelled, thermal spectrum using light water as moderator and heat transfer medium, designed to produce electricity''.<br />
<br />
==== Magnox and AGRs ====<br />
[[File:AGR.jpg | right | thumb | Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR)]]<br />
After the war Britain built gas-cooled graphite-moderated pile reactors using un-enriched ("natural") Uranium, at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_Piles Windscale] (one of which suffered a near-catastrophic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire fire] in 1957). These led to the design of Britain's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnox Magnox] reactor, which was used in the first commercial-scale power reactor in the world at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Calder_Hall_power_station Calder Hall] (at what is now called the Sellafield nuclear plant).<br />
<br />
Magnox reactors are ''solid, natural Uranium fuelled, thermal spectrum using graphite as moderator and {{CO2}} as heat transfer medium, designed to produce plutonium as well as electricity''.<br />
<br />
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gas-cooled_Reactor Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor] is a development of the Magnox intended to be better at producing electricity whilst dropping the function of producing plutonium.<br />
<br />
* AGRs are ''solid, low-enriched-Uranium fuelled, thermal spectrum using graphite as moderator and {{CO2}} as heat transfer medium, designed to produce electricity''.<br />
<br />
''For more on the AGR see [https://archive.uea.ac.uk/~e680/energy/energy_links/nuclear/How_an_AGR_power_station_works.pdf How an AGR power station works] by British Energy Group plc, 2006''<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
<br />
[[File:CANDU.jpg | right | thumb | CANDU reactor]]<br />
<br />
* The basic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor Canada Deuterium Uranium] design is a pressurised water reactor using ''solid, natural Uranium fuel, thermal spectrum using [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water heavy water] as moderator and heat transfer medium to generate electricity''.<br />
<br />
See also the University of Calgary's page on CANDU reactors on their [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor Energy Education] website.<br />
<br />
In a post on Facebook by [[Christoffer Keyfor]] his friend Chris Adlam says of the CANDU:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Back in the 1950's while the US and the rest of the world were hotly pursuing atomic weapons, Canada, who had no desire for nuclear arms, saw the power of the atom as a way to produce abundant and inexpensive electricity. Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) was the Federal thinktank comprised of brilliant engineers whose goal was exactly that: come up with a nuclear reactor that didn't require enrichment (we didn't have enrichment capability because we didn't have a nuclear arms program) and whose purpose was to be used for power generation.<br />
<br />
Utilizing deuterium as a moderator, which allowed the use of a fuel with very low fissile content (natural uranium), what would become the foundation for the CANDU was in its infancy. A pressure tube design was chosen as the low fissile content fuel would need to be swapped out frequently, thus it was a requirement that the reactor could be refuelled online.<br />
After a small radiological release incident at Chalk River, it was determined that multiple levels of containment and redundant safety systems would be absolutely necessary. A family of designs was born from this philosophy with safety being the top priority.<br />
<br />
After NPD was constructed and successfully demonstrated the CANDU concept the first commercial unit for the purpose of power generation was constructed. This was in the early 1960's at Douglas Point, now part of the massive Bruce Power site. This ~200MWe unit was a proof-of-concept design and led to the construction of the 4 units at Pickering A in a partnership between AECL, the Federal Government, the Ontario government and Ontario Hydro. Pickering was built instead of a similar capacity (4GW) coal plant.<br />
<br />
Pickering was a massive success and by this point AECL had come up with a larger design and Ontario Hydro was keen. This led to the construction of Bruce A whose steam generators were intentionally oversized so the units could produce process steam to run operations on the grounds, such as the massive heavy water plant designed to produce deuterium both for domestic use and export. It was expected that the CANDU would be popular abroad, as we had managed to obtain partnerships and construction contracts with India, Romania, New Brunswick, Quebec...etc. CANDU was going places and we wanted to be ready.<br />
<br />
On the heels of Bruce A came Pickering B, now based on the standardized CANDU 6 design, but with some changes on the steam and generation side to make it more similar to the A plant, thus reducing output. Then Bruce B was built, as efforts were made to cement the design for what would be the next export-ready unit, the CANDU 9. This led to the first commercial construct of that unit design: Darlington.<br />
<br />
Darlington is probably the best known and most maligned nuclear plant in Ontario's entire nuclear fleet. Construction started while Bruce B hadn't even come online yet (similar to Bruce A and Pickering B) and was well underway when disaster struck: Half a world away a massive and unweildly reactor designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium succumbed to operator incompetence and suffered a meltdown. Because it lacked secondary containment found on every CANDU including Douglas Point, a hydrogen explosion resulted in a large radiological release.<br />
<br />
Everything stopped.<br />
<br />
Construction at Darlington ceased. The world scrambled to reconcile with what happened and the entire nuclear industry, even here in Canada, despite sharing absolutely nothing in common with the Soviet RBMK design at Chernobyl, went back to the drawing board. They had to prove it couldn't happen here. While this was taking place time, and debt, marched on. Interest rates were soaring, the cost of the Darlington project, despite no actual work being done, was increasing rapidly. By the time the first unit entered commercial service 10 years had passed, a far cry from the 6 years shovel to breaker for the Bruce A units. This led to a construction cost of $14.4 billion. Darlington was a white elephant and thus the B plant was never built.<br />
<br />
Darlington was the most mature design in the CANDU fleet. It was, at the time, the epitome of CANDU engineering. Deep water inlet and outlet diffusers, better heat transfer loop design, higher power output...etc. The list goes on.<br />
<br />
We never exported CANDU 9.<br />
<br />
After Chernobyl the global nuclear industry never recovered. AECL managed to land a few CANDU 6 sales but the 9 went nowhere and it was abandoned. Darlington is the only operating example of the CANDU 9.<br />
<br />
Since then, AECL managed to partner with China on the Enhanced CANDU 6, which the Chinese had interest in because as had been demonstrated in various tests in Canada, the high neutron economy and inherently flexible nature of the deuterium pressure tube design meant that the CANDU could run on a huge variety of fuel combinations, something other reactors were simply incapable of. China's intention for the units at Qinshan was for them to run on the used fuel coming out of their neighbouring American-style light water units, and they do.<br />
When AECL failed to secure the construction contract for the ACR1000's that were supposed to be built at Darlington B in the 20-teens it was sold off to SNC Lavalin. Ontario had screwed itself with insanely generous fixed-rate contracts for industrial wind and even more highly subsidized solar projects. This drove rates through the roof, leaving no consumer tolerance for a 25 billion dollar nuclear development.<br />
<br />
As OPG continues to refurbish Darlington, now on Unit 3, and Bruce Power refurbishes the remaining 6x Bruce units while providing the 2nd lowest cost generation in the province I think it important to note that these things are not widely celebrated. Ontario has one of the lowest emissions grids in the world and that's mostly due to our massive nuclear fleet. Who knew that before reading this?<br />
<br />
Today, as Darlington Unit 1 soldiers on after setting the world record for continuous operation at 963 days of almost zero emissions generation we should be proud of what that stands for: a Canadian design built by Canadians for Canadians for the purpose of peaceful power production. Operated by your fellow Ontarians providing valuable employment in all corners of this massive province and, along with hydro, being one of the only things keeping your rates down after the disaster that was the GEA. This is something we can, and should, all be proud of."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
==== RBMK ====<br />
<br />
[[File:RBMK.jpg | right | thumb | RBMK ]]<br />
<br />
This Soviet-designed reactor is notorious as the type involved in the [[Chornobyl]] accident in 1986.<br />
<br />
* The original design was ''solid, natural Uranium fuelled, thermal spectrum using graphite moderator and water as heat transfer medium, designed to produce electricity and able to produce plutonium'', but modifications to the design after Chernobyl required it to use ''low-enriched-Uranium''.<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== FURTHER READING ==<br />
<br />
Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor article] on nuclear reactors and associated topics, with links to more detailed articles.<br />
----<br />
[https://whatisnuclear.com/about.html What Is Nuclear?] have some resources including:<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/ an overview of what is nuclear energy]<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/nucreactor.html What is a nuclear reactor?] - a discussion of several reactor types<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/msr.html Molten Salt Reactors] - discusses some of the pros and cons of MSRs and their history ''(note however this article is a few years out of date, for example having no mention of the demise of [[Transatomic Power]], or of [[Moltex]])''.<br />
----<br />
The IET has [https://www.theiet.org/impact-society/factfiles/energy-factfiles/nuclear-power/ several factfiles on nuclear power] including:<br />
* [https://www.theiet.org/media/1274/nuclear-principles.pdf Principles of nuclear power] which discusses the structure of atoms, the concept of fission, chain reactions, and the essential elements of a power reactor (using the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor as example),<br />
* [https://www.theiet.org/media/1275/nuclear-reactors.pdf Nuclear Reactor Types] discusses and compares Magnox, AGR, PWR, BWR, CANDU, and RBMK reactors, and some future designs.<br />
<br />
''These documents date from around 2008 and, whilst they have since been "redesigned", they still refer to, for example, the [[EPR]] as a future design.''<br />
----<br />
In this video<ref><br />
Also available on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGj_aJz7cTs YouTube]<br />
</ref> from the BBC's "Bang Goes The Theory", [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jem_Stansfield Jem Stansfield] shows the basic principle of operation of a nuclear (or other steam-generating thermal) power station, describes the process of nuclear fission of Uranium atoms, and shows the inside of a never-used Boiling Water Reactor at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plant Zwentendorf nuclear power plant]<ref><br />
The Zwentendorf nuclear power plant was completed but it was prevented from going into operation by a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Austrian_nuclear_power_referendum referendum on nuclear power]. It was replaced by a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCrnrohr_Power_Station coal fired power station].<br />
</ref> in Austria:<br />
<br />
[[File:Inside a nuclear reactor core - Bang Goes The Theory - BBC.mp4 | center]]<br />
<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_radiation&diff=5519Nuclear radiation2022-10-07T09:53:30Z<p>Sisussman: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Nuclear radiation]]<br />
<div style="font-weight:bold; font-size:20px;"><br />
What is nuclear radiation and how dangerous is it?<br />
</div><br />
Nuclear radiation involves protons and neutrons and electrons and gamma rays, and is addressed [[What is nuclear radiation?|here]].<br />
<br />
'''How dangerous is it?'''<br />
<br />
Short answer: it's like sunlight; if it's very intense it can cause burns and cancers and can kill. (At Chornobyl, where radiation was so intense that some victims got immediate radiation "sunburn", 28 of the workers at the power plant, firefighters, and "liquidators" who tackled the accident, and who were most heavily exposed, subsequently died of Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS).)<br />
<br />
'''What happens at lower levels - including within the Fukushima and Chornobyl exclusion zones?'''<br />
<br />
We now have vast amount of data on the risks to health of exposure to ionising radiation. These include long-term follow up studies of exposure following atomic bomb explosions, accidents at nuclear plants, and accidents involving medical isotopes. From these we know that risks are very low compared to common risks such as exposure to air pollution, or eating red meat. The regulatory criteria that we apply to ionising radiation are at least 100-fold more stringent that the criteria applied to air pollution; for example air pollution in a city like London shortens inhabitants lives more than living in the Fukushima exclusion zone would do. This discrepancy has resulted in failure to expand nuclear energy, and even shutting down working reactors, which have caused millions of avoidable deaths from burning fossil fuels for electricity generation instead of using nuclear energy, and resulted in increased {{CO2}} emissions which threaten us through climate change. Being over-protective against nuclear risks can actually result in greater harm from other causes, just as avoiding sunlight due to fear of skin cancers may result in harm from lack of exercise and other benefits of being outdoors in the sunshine.<br />
<br />
What the exact effects are of low intensity radiation, especially the very low levels generally classified as "background radiation", is still a matter of scientific uncertainty and discussion. This is because at low levels &mdash; including those at most of the areas surrounding Chornobyl and Fukushima &mdash; any health effects are so low that they are masked by the effects of countless other things in our lifestyles and environment that affect our health, from second-hand smoking to stress<ref><br />
The scientific body comprising professionals who specialise in radiation safety advises against estimating health risks to people from exposures to radiation at natural background levels because of the statistical uncertainties at such low levels; see<br />
"Radiation Risk In Perspective";<br />
[https://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf Health Physics Society]<br />
</ref>.<br />
<br />
[[File:Radiation risk models (OxMartin).png | 320px | right]]<br />
<br />
The differing schools of thought are:<br />
* '''Linear No Threshold''' (LNT)<br>harm (such as cancers) caused by radiation is proportional to dose at all levels, even the low levels of background radiation,<br />
* '''Linear with Threshold''' <br>no harm at levels below a certain threshold,<br />
* '''Non-Linear'''<br>disproportionately more harm (concave down in picture), or disproportionately less harm (concave up), at low levels compared to higher levels,<br />
* '''Hormesis''' <br>that at low levels radiation has a positive effect on health.<br />
<br />
The Non-linear/Threshold and Hormesis models have a theoretical basis in the repair mechanisms which cells had to evolve billions of years ago in order for life to survive on a planet that was much more radioactive than it is now.<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
A paper summarising the scientific evidence on the health effects of low-level radiation from the Oxford Martin school presents a review of the scientific evidence by a group of experts and describes in which areas there is a scientific consensus, an emerging consensus, no consensus, or uncertainty<ref><br />
[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2017.1070 A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning the health effects of low-level ionizing radiation] <br />
Angela R. McLean, Ella K. Adlen, Elisabeth Cardis, Alex Elliott, Dudley T. Goodhead, Mats Harms-Ringdahl, Jolyon H. Hendry, Peter Hoskin, Penny A. Jeggo, David J. C. Mackay, Colin R. Muirhead, John Shepherd, Roy E. Shore, Geraldine A. Thomas, Richard Wakeford, H. Charles J. Godfray;<br />
Proceedings of The Royal Society B, Biological Sciences; 13 Sept 2017 ''(also available from the <br />
[https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/restatements/Oxford%20_Martin%20_Restatement5_Radiation.pdf Oxford Martin School] (pdf))<br />
</ref>.<br />
<br />
Of particular interest to discussions on nuclear energy are the paper's findings on Chornobyl and Fukushima:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
'''The Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident'''<br />
<br />
A number of early emergency workers at the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant received high doses which produced tissue reactions and 28 early deaths. The long-term health impacts are contested. There is consensus on two major health impacts: thyroid cancers caused by high levels of exposure of children to radioactive iodine, and ill-effects to mental health caused by widespread fear of potential risks and social disruption. There is emerging evidence on the risk of leukaemia among recovery workers and those risks are broadly in line with what is expected from the LSS. At present, there is little convincing evidence of other radiation-associated effects in recovery workers or the wider public. <br />
<br />
'''The Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident'''<br />
<br />
The Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident has caused substantial ill-health through the effects of the evacuations, continued displacement and fear of radiation. It is unclear if there will be a detectable excess in thyroid cancer in the coming years. No other discernible increase in ill-health attributable to radiation exposure is expected in either emergency workers or members of the public.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
The paper also notes:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
'''Perspectives'''<br />
<br />
Compared with other common health risks (obesity, tobacco smoking, exposure to ambient particulate air pollution), the number of years of life lost owing to radiation exposure is small.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Further reading: links and resources ==<br />
<br />
[[File:CNSC radiation site.png | right | link=https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/radiation/introduction-to-radiation/types-and-sources-of-radiation.cfm]]<br />
<br />
[https://hps.org/ Health Physics Society]<br />
* [http://hps.org/hpspublications/radiationfactsheets.html fact sheets]<br />
* [http://www.radiationanswers.org/ Radiation Answers]<br />
** [http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-and-me.html Radiation and Me]<br />
* [https://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf RADIATION RISK IN PERSPECTIVE - POSITION STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY] revised May 2016 ([[media:Radiation risk in perspective - position statement -- Health Physics Society.pdf|local copy]])<br />
{{Quote|The Health Physics Society advises against estimating health risks to people from exposures to ionizing radiation that are near or less than natural background levels because statistical uncertainties at these low levels are great. [...] below levels of about 100 mSv above background from all sources combined, the observed radiation effects in people are not statistically different from zero.}}<br />
<br />
The '''International Atomic Energy Agency''' (IAEA) publishes [https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/radiation0204.pdf Radiation, People and the Environment], <br />
"a broad overview of ionizing radiation, its effects and uses, as well as the measures in place to use it safely". This document is a fairly comprehensive lay-person's introduction to atoms, types of radiation, interactions between radiation and matter, effects in living tissues and doses, sources and effects of ionising radiation, cancers and hereditary disease risks, radiological protection principles and practice, international safety standards, natural radiation, medical uses, environmental pollution including [[Chornobyl]], nuclear power reactors, decommissioning and waste, accidents, transport of radioactive materials, and more.<br />
<br />
The '''United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation''' publishes a [http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/faq.html FAQ] (answers to Frequently Asked Questions):<br />
* What is radiation?<br />
* How is radiation measured?<br />
* How are people exposed to radiation?<br />
* What levels of radiation exposure do people receive?<br />
* What are the effects of exposure to radiation?<br />
<br />
The '''Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission''' has a web page<br />
[https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/radiation/introduction-to-radiation/types-and-sources-of-radiation.cfm Types and sources of radiation]<br />
describing clearly what non-ionizing and ionizing radiation are, and discussing natural and artificial sources of the latter, how much occurs naturally in foodstuffs and our bodies, etc. ''(Image at right is a screenshot of the CNSC page.)''<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<br />
[http://www.triumf.info/wiki/pwalden/index.php/Are_Chernobyl_and_Fukushima_legislated_disasters%3F ARE CHERNOBYL AND FUKUSHIMA LEGISLATED DISASTERS?]<br />
<br />
== Radiation doses ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons Ionising radiation: dose comparisons] Public Health England; 18 Mar 2011<br />
<br />
[https://xkcd.com/radiation/ Radiation Dose Chart] Randall Munroe; xkcd<br />
[[File:Xkcd_radiation.png]]<br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/NuclearEnergyInstitute/photos/a.406537129362844.114029.358113240871900/1080476841968866/?type=3&theater Radiation in Perspective] Nuclear Energy Institute; Facebook; 13 Apr 2015<br />
[[File:Facebook-Nuclear Energy Institute-IDigUMining-radiation chart.png]]<br />
<br />
[http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663509/infographic-of-the-day-the-best-radiation-chart-weve-seen-so-far Infographic of the Day: The Best Radiation Chart We've Seen So Far] MORGAN CLENDANIEL; fastcodesign; 29 Nov 2011<br />
: Radiation levels outside the Fukushima power plant remain mostly safe, but just how close are they to being dangerous?<br />
[[File:Information is Beautiful -- radiation chart 3.jpg]]<br />
<br />
[[File:Banana-Single.jpg|thumb|240px|A banana contains naturally occurring radioactive potassium-40|link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose]]<br />
'''Banana equivalent dose (BED)''' is an informal measurement of ionizing radiation exposure, intended as a general educational example to compare a dose of radioactivity to the dose one is exposed to by eating one average-sized banana. Bananas contain naturally occurring radioactive isotopes, particularly potassium-40, one of several naturally-occurring isotopes of potassium. One BED is often correlated to 10<sup>−7</sup> sievert (0.1 μSv); however, in practice, this dose is not cumulative, as the principal radioactive component is excreted to maintain metabolic equilibrium. The BED is only meant to inform the public about the existence of very low levels of natural radioactivity within a natural food and is not a formally adopted dose measurement.<br />
-- from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose Wikipedia]<br />
{{clear}}<br />
----<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842 Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation] Wade Allison; BBC; 26 Mar 2011<br />
{{Quote|<br />
More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.<br />
<br />
Nuclear radiation at very high levels is dangerous, but the scale of concern that it evokes is misplaced. Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.<br />
<br />
What of Three Mile Island? There were no known deaths there.<br />
<br />
And Chernobyl? The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer - which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken (as they have now in Japan). And in each case the numbers are minute compared with the 3,800 at Bhopal in 1984, who died as a result of a leak of chemicals from the Union Carbide pesticide plant.<br />
<br />
So what of the radioactivity released at Fukushima? How does it compare with that at Chernobyl? Let's look at the measured count rates. The highest rate reported, at 1900 on 22 March, for any Japanese prefecture was 12 kBq per sq m (for the radioactive isotope of caesium, caesium-137).<br />
<br />
A map of Chernobyl in the UN report shows regions shaded according to rate, up to 3,700 kBq per sq m - areas with less than 37 kBq per sq m are not shaded at all. In round terms, this suggests that the radioactive fallout at Fukushima is less than 1% of that at Chernobyl.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Radioactive Isotopes ==<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131 Iodine-131] Wikipedia<br />
: (8 days)<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Iodine-131 (131I), is an important radioisotope of iodine discovered by Glenn Seaborg and John Livingood in 1938 at the University of California, Berkeley.[1] It has a radioactive decay half-life of about eight days. It is associated with nuclear energy, medical diagnostic and treatment procedures, and natural gas production. It also plays a major role as a radioactive isotope present in nuclear fission products, and was a significant contributor to the health hazards from open-air atomic bomb testing in the 1950s, and from the Chernobyl disaster, as well as being a large fraction of the contamination hazard in the first weeks in the Fukushima nuclear crisis. This is because I-131 is a major uranium, plutonium fission product, comprising nearly 3% of the total products of fission (by weight). I-131 is also a major fission product of uranium-233, produced from thorium.<br />
<br />
Due to its mode of beta decay, iodine-131 is notable for causing mutation and death in cells that it penetrates, and other cells up to several millimeters away. For this reason, high doses of the isotope are sometimes less dangerous than low doses, since they tend to kill thyroid tissues that would otherwise become cancerous as a result of the radiation. For example, children treated with moderate dose of I-131 for thyroid adenomas had a detectable increase in thyroid cancer, but children treated with a much higher dose did not. Likewise, most studies of very-high-dose I-131 for treatment of Graves disease have failed to find any increase in thyroid cancer, even though there is linear increase in thyroid cancer risk with I-131 absorption at moderate doses.[2] Thus, iodine-131 is increasingly less employed in small doses in medical use (especially in children), but increasingly is used only in large and maximal treatment doses, as a way of killing targeted tissues. This is known as "therapeutic use."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137 Caesium-137] Wikipedia<br />
: (30 years)<br />
{{Quote|Caesium-137 (Cs-137), cesium-137, or radiocaesium, is a radioactive isotope of caesium which is formed as one of the more common fission products by the nuclear fission of uranium-235 and other fissionable isotopes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. It is among the most problematic of the short-to-medium-lifetime fission products because it easily moves and spreads in nature due to the high water solubility of caesium's most common chemical compounds, which are salts.}}<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90 Strontium-90] Wikipedia<br />
: (28.8 years)<br />
<br />
== Radiation effects ==<br />
[http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/13742-x-rays-dont-cause-cancer-study X-rays don’t cause cancer: study] safety and health magazine<br />
<br />
[http://radiationeffects.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Noelle-Metting-Low-Dose-Update-2012-EFCOG.pdf US Low dose radiation research program] US Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research; 13-15 Mar 2012<br />
: DOE’s Low Dose Program: Is unique within the U.S. government in focusing on low dose iological research aimed at informing current and future national radiation risk policy for the public and the workplace<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597830/ A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning the health effects of low-level ionizing radiation]<br />
Angela R. McLean, Ella K. Adlen, Elisabeth Cardis, Alex Elliott, Dudley T. Goodhead, Mats Harms-Ringdahl, Jolyon H. Hendry, Peter Hoskin, Penny A. Jeggo, David J. C. Mackay, Colin R. Muirhead, John Shepherd, Roy E. Shore, Geraldine A. Thomas, Richard Wakeford, H. Charles J. Godfray; Proceedings of the Royal Society - Biological Sciences; 13 Sep 2017<br />
{{Quote|Exposure to ionizing radiation is ubiquitous, and it is well established that moderate and high doses cause ill-health and can be lethal. The health effects of low doses or low dose-rates of ionizing radiation are not so clear. This paper describes a project which sets out to summarize, as a restatement, the natural science evidence base concerning the human health effects of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. A novel feature, compared to other reviews, is that a series of statements are listed and categorized according to the nature and strength of the evidence that underpins them. The purpose of this restatement is to provide a concise entrée into this vibrant field, pointing the interested reader deeper into the literature when more detail is needed. It is not our purpose to reach conclusions on whether the legal limits on radiation exposures are too high, too low or just right. Our aim is to provide an introduction so that non-specialist individuals in this area (be they policy-makers, disputers of policy, health professionals or students) have a straightforward place to start. The summary restatement of the evidence and an extensively annotated bibliography are provided as appendices in the electronic supplementary material.}}<br />
<br />
=== Radiation burns ===<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_burn#Beta_burns Radiation burns - Beta burns] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|"Beta burns" are shallow surface burns, usually of skin and less often of lungs or gastrointestinal tract, caused by beta particles, typically from hot particles or dissolved radionuclides that came to direct contact with or close proximity to the body. They can appear similar to sunburn. Unlike gamma rays, beta emissions are stopped much more effectively by materials and therefore deposit all their energy in only a shallow layer of tissue, causing more intense but more localized damage. On cellular level, the changes in skin are similar to radiodermatitis.}}<br />
<br />
== Radiation and cancers ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.aiva.ca/Dobrzynski_L_etal_Dose-Response_2015.pdf Cancer Mortality Among People Living in Areas With Various Levels of Natural Background Radiation] Ludwik Dobrzynski, Krzysztof W. Fornalski, Ludwig E. Feinendegen; Dose-response; Jul-Sep 2015<br />
{{Quote|There are many places on the earth, where natural background radiation exposures are elevated significantly above about 2.5 mSv/year. The studies of health effects on populations living in such places are crucially important for understanding the impact of low doses of ionizing radiation. This article critically reviews some recent representative literature that addresses the likelihood of radiation-induced cancer and early childhood death in regions with high natural background radiation. The comparative and Bayesian analysis of the published data shows that the linear no-threshold hypothesis does not likely explain the results of these recent studies, whereas they favor the model of threshold or hormesis. Neither cancers nor early childhood deaths positively correlate with dose rates in regions with elevated natural background radiation.}}<br />
<br />
[http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1532/ML15329A092.pdf Comment On: NRC-2015-0057-0086 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period] Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM, Medical Physicist, Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19111; 17 Nov 2015<br />
{{Quote|I am responding to comments received from many members of the public who have raised major concerns regarding the recent petitions to discontinue the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for establishing radiation safety regulations, and the proposed higher radiation dose limits for the public. These concerns are based on a misunderstanding that exists regarding cancer and radiation effects in our society.}}<br />
<br />
[http://nukespp.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/linear-no-threshold-model-and-standards.html Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation] Nukes Pretty Please; 8 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|This is a, sort of, re-blog of Mohan Doss' submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, on radiation protection standards (link is above). Don't let that put you off reading it. It is a well-written summary of what we currently know about the harms of radiation and actual causes of cancer.}}<br />
<br />
[https://thoughtscapism.com/2018/03/01/radiation-and-cancer-risk-what-do-we-know/ Radiation and Cancer Risk – What Do We Know?] Iida Ruishalme; Thoughscapism; 1 Mar 2018<br />
{{Quote|<br />
After my visit to the nuclear waste facility ZWILAG, I set out to answer one question: How dangerous is their “high radiation area?”<br />
<br />
I found that regulatory limits on radiation are set very cautiously, that effects of low level radiation are really hard to pin down, and that there are people naturally living with radiation levels far beyond what are the legal limits for nuclear plant workers. Some of those areas I visit every year.<br />
<br />
I conclude that I could camp in the dry cask hall without being likely to have an increased cancer risk, but I should probably think twice about living there.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Linear No Threshold model ==<br />
[https://atomicinsights.com/why-was-h-j-muller-an-effective-tool-in-effort-to-exaggerate-danger-of-radiation/ Why was H. J. Muller an effective tool in effort to exaggerate danger of radiation?] Rod Adams; Atomic Insights; 7 Apr 2019<br />
<br />
[https://atomicinsights.com/methods-used-to-create-the-no-safe-dose-myth-about-radiation-supports-immediate-transition-to-a-better-model/ Methods used to create the “no safe dose” myth about radiation supports immediate transition to a better model] Rod Adams; Atomic Insights; 24 Aug 2018<br />
<br />
== [[Hormesis]] * ==<br />
<br />
== atomic bomb survivors ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33858/ Genetic studies at the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission–Radiation Effects Research Foundation: 1946–1997] James V. Neel; PNAS; 12 May 1998<br />
<br />
== Background radiation ==<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation Background Radiation] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2013/01/22/hot-spots-earths-5-most-naturally-radioactive-places/ Hot Spots: Earth’s 5 Most Naturally Radioactive Places] Steve; Web Ecoist; <br />
* Guarapari, Brazil<br />
* Ramsar, Iran<br />
* Paralana Hot Springs, Arkaroola, Australia<br />
* Yangjiang, China<br />
* Karunagappally, Kerala, India<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRL7o2kPqw0 The Most Radioactive Places on Earth] (Veritasium; YouTube; 17 Dec 2014)<br />
{{Quote|Who on Earth is exposed to the most ionizing radiation? I'm filming a documentary for TV about how Uranium and radioactivity have shaped the modern world. It will be broadcast in mid-2015, details to come. The filming took me to the most radioactive places on Earth (and some places, which surprisingly aren't as radioactive as you'd think). Chernobyl and Fukushima were incredible to see as they present post-apocalyptic landscapes. I also visited nuclear power plants, research reactors, Marie Curie's institute, Einstein's apartment, nuclear medicine areas of hospitals, uranium mines, nuclear bomb sites, and interviewed numerous experts.}}<br />
: with sources<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/02/02/heres-why-every-glass-of-wine-you-drink-is-radioactive-yes-really/ Here's Why Every Glass Of Wine You Drink Is Radioactive -- Yes, Really] (Quora; Forbes; 2 Feb 2016)<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4030667/ Human exposure to high natural background radiation: what can it teach us about radiation risks?] Jolyon H Hendry, Steven L Simon, Andrzej Wojcik, Mehdi Sohrabi, Werner Burkart, Elisabeth Cardis, Dominique Laurier, Margot Tirmarche, and Isamu Hayata<br />
{{Quote|Natural radiation is the major source of human exposure to ionising radiation, and its largest contributing component to effective dose arises from inhalation of 222Rn and its radioactive progeny. However, despite extensive knowledge of radiation risks gained through epidemiologic investigations and mechanistic considerations, the health effects of chronic low-level radiation exposure are still poorly understood. The present paper reviews the possible contribution of studies of populations living in high natural background radiation (HNBR) areas (Guarapari, Brazil; Kerala, India; Ramsar, Iran; Yangjiang, China), including radon-prone areas, to low dose risk estimation. Much of the direct information about risk related to HNBR comes from case–control studies of radon and lung cancer, which provide convincing evidence of an association between long-term protracted radiation exposures in the general population and disease incidence. The success of these studies is mainly due to the careful organ dose reconstruction (with relatively high doses to the lung), and to the fact that large-scale collaborative studies have been conducted to maximise the statistical power and to ensure the systematic collection of information on potential confounding factors. In contrast, studies in other (non-radon) HNBR areas have provided little information, relying mainly on ecological designs and very rough effective dose categorisations. Recent steps taken in China and India to establish cohorts for follow-up and to conduct nested case–control studies may provide useful information about risks in the future, provided that careful organ dose reconstruction is possible and information is collected on potential confounding factors.}}<br />
<br />
== Childhood cancers ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comare-14th-report Childhood leukaemia incidence around UK nuclear power plants] Department of Health / Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE); 6 May 2011<br />
{{Quote|The aim of this report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) is to undertake a further review of the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear power plants (NPPs) in Great Britain, with particular reference to recent publications, including the German ‘Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken’ study and studies from other countries (for example France and Finland), and in relation to the conclusions in the tenth and eleventh COMARE reports. This review considers England, Scotland and Wales, because there are no NPPS in Northern Ireland.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/05May/Pages/nuclear-power-plant-leukaemia-report.aspx Nuclear power 'not source of leukaemia'] NHS choices; 9 May 2011<br />
: commentary on COMARE 14th report, and Guardian article quoting it.<br />
<br />
[http://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049%2807%2900855-6/abstract Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003] Claudia Spix, Sven Schmiedel, Peter Kaatsch, Renate Schulze-Rath, Maria Blettner; European Journal of Cancer; 2007<br />
{{Quote|The 1984 Windscale study raised concern about a possible association between living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants and childhood cancer. No such effect for all cancers was seen in ecological studies in Germany (1980–1995). Results from exploratory analyses led to a new study.<br />
<br />
Pre-selected areas around all 16 major nuclear power plants in Germany formed the study area. The design is a matched case–control study; cases are all cancers under five years diagnosed in 1980–2003: 1592 cases, and 4735 controls. Inverse distance of place of residence to the nearest nuclear power plant at the time of diagnosis was used as the independent variable in a conditional logistic regression model.<br />
<br />
Results show an increased risk for childhood cancer under five years when living near nuclear power plants in Germany. The inner 5-km zone shows an increased risk (odds ratio 1.47; lower one-sided 95% confidence limit 1.16). The effect was largely restricted to leukaemia.<br />
<br />
The results are compatible with the corresponding subgroups in the previous German ecological studies, with which this study shares most of the cases. They contrast with the lack of an effect observed or expected from other studies due to low doses from routine nuclear power plant operation.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v109/n11/full/bjc2013560a.html Leukaemia in young children in the vicinity of British nuclear power plants: a case–control study] J F Bithell, M F G Murphy, C A Stiller, E Toumpakari, T Vincent, R Wakeford; British Journal of Cancer; 12 Sep 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* background: Concern about the risk of leukaemia in children living near nuclear power plants (NPPs) persists. Previous British analyses have been area based and consequently thought to be less effective than case–control studies.<br />
* methods: Cases of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (LNHL) born and diagnosed in Great Britain between 1962 and 2007, with matched cancer-free controls, were analysed by logistic regression to estimate the risk of residential proximity at birth and diagnosis to the nearest NPP, adjusting for relevant variables.<br />
* results: For 9821 children with LNHL under the age of 5 years, the estimated extra risk associated with residential proximity to an NPP at birth was negative—interpolated Odds Ratio (OR) at 5 km was 0.86 (0.49–1.52). The comparison of 10 618 children with LNHL under five with 16 760 similarly aged children with other cancers also gave a negative estimate of the extra risk of residential proximity at diagnosis—interpolated OR at 5 km was 0.86 (0.62–1.18).<br />
* conclusion: Our results show little evidence of an increase in risk of LNHL to children aged under 5 years from living in the vicinity of an NPP. Risk estimates are incompatible with comparable ones published in a recent German case–control study.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/09September/Pages/no-link-between-child-cancer-and-nuclear-power-plants.aspx 'No link' between nuclear plants and child cancer] NHS choices; 13 Sep 2013<br />
: article based on the Bithell et al study<br />
<br />
== Philip Thomas / NREFS ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.bristol.ac.uk/engineering/people/philip-j-thomas/index.html Professor Philip Thomas]<br />
<br />
[http://www.bris.ac.uk/cabot/events/2014/the-j-value-risk-assessment-tool-.html The J-value Risk Assessment Tool and its application to big nuclear accidents]<br />
<br />
[http://www.nrefs.org/ NREFS: Management of Nuclear Risk Issues: Environmental, Financial and Safety]<br />
<br />
== Geraldine Thomas ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/geraldine.thomas Professor Geraldine Thomas] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas wikipedia]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] United Nations University [http://fgc.unu.edu/en/ Fukushima Communications Program]; 9 Nov 2014<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7sGESRhpqg Health Risks from Radiation from Nuclear Accidents – Facts and Fantasy] <br />
: video of lecture (with Q&A) at the CDT Festival of Science 2015 at Imperial College London<br />
<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-smoking-more-dangerous-radiation Look at the science – smoking and obesity are more harmful than radiation] Geraldine Thomas; Guardian; 26 Apr 2011<br />
: Chernobyl and the WW2 bombs should have taught us about how dangerous nuclear really is, but it continues to be hyped up<br />
<br />
== radiation released from nuclear v. coal ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste] Mara Hvistendahl; Scientific American; 13 Dec 2007<br />
: By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation<br />
: based on 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)<br />
<br />
[http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/09/362/9362611.pdf Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal-Fired and Nuclear Power Plants] J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, R. E. Blanco; ORNL Chemical Technology Division; Aug 1977<br />
<br />
[http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/coalvsnucMarcon.pdf Nuclear proliferation through coal burning] Gordon J. Aubrecht, II; Physics Education Research Group, Department of Physics, Ohio State University; 25 May 2003<br />
: ''page 8''<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The EPA found slightly higher average coal concentrations than used by McBride et al. of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Gabbard (A. Gabbard, “Coal combustion: nuclear resource or danger?,” ORNL Review 26, http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html.) finds that American releases from each typical 1 GWe coal plant in 1982 were 4.7 tonnes of uranium and 11.6 tonnes of thorium, for a total national release of 727 tonnes of uranium and 1788 tonnes of thorium. The total release of radioactivity from coal-fired fossil fuel was 97.3 TBq (9.73 x 1013 Bq) that year. This compares to the total release of 0.63 TBq (6.3 x 1011 Bq) from the notorious TMI accident, 155 times smaller.<br />
<br />
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) similarly found that population exposure from operation of comparable (1 GWe) nuclear and coal-fired power plants was 4.9 personSv/yr for coal plants and 4.8 x 10-2 person-Sv/yr for nuclear plants, a factor of ~100 greater for the coal-fired plants.<br />
<br />
A single 1 GWe coal-fired plant causes 25 fatalities, 60,000 cases of respiratory disease, and $12 million in property damage, as well as emitting an amount of NOx equivalent to 20,000 cars per year. It also produces ashes and sludge.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Fukushima ==<br />
[http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/nuclear/nopetheres-no-thyroid-cancer-epidemic-in-fukushima There's no Thyroid cancer epidemic in Fukushima]<br />
{{Quote|The Linear No Threshold hypothesis is extremely difficult to test below levels quite a bit above typical background levels because it predicts effects in terms of rates of cancers so much lower than occur naturally anyway that rates of radiation-induced cancers down in the "noise" of normal variability and confounding effects, such as especially inaccuracies in reported levels of smoking earlier in subjects' lives.}}<br />
<br />
=== Pacific ===<br />
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-i-learned-from-an-ocean-radioactivity-testing-project/ What I Learned from an Ocean Radioactivity Testing Project] Ken Buesseler; Scientific American; 12 Dec 2018<br />
{{Quote|<br />
We live in a radioactive world. That simple fact about our planet kept coming to me in the weeks and months after March 11, 2011, when the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power plant overheated, exploded and began releasing radioactivity into the ocean and atmosphere. It was a fact that I also learned after Chernobyl in 1986, when I was a graduate student in chemical oceanography studying plutonium in the ocean produced during nuclear weapons testing. <br />
<br />
In the days and years after Fukushima, I would find myself responding to audiences up and down the West Coast who expressed concern about reports of a radioactive “blob” making its way across the Pacific or dead birds found on a beach or decomposing starfish. I kept hearing the same questions from worried parents, fisherman and surfers: Is it safe? Should I stay out of the water? Can I eat seafood? Is the Pacific dying?<br />
<br />
I am a scientist, so my first response after the accident was to head to Japan, collect samples and assess the situation. Near the reactors, where we were not allowed to sample, levels of radioactivity in the ocean spiked to more than 10 million times the pre-accident background in early April. By the time we arrived in June, levels had thankfully had fallen thousands of times, but it was still easy to detect this new source of radioactivity as it mixed into the ocean and began moving inexorably east.<br />
<br />
To my surprise, as radioactivity levels near Japan decreased, public concern in the United States increased. Maps pinpointing the spread and dilution of radioactive cesium-134 and -137—the principal markers of radioactivity from Fukushima—did little to allay public concerns. But because no federal agency claims oversight for radioactivity in ocean water, there was no place I could apply for funding to respond to these concerns in a comprehensive way. And since there was also no way I could take everyone in California on a research cruise to see what I was seeing, I decided to get people to see for themselves how much radiation there was.<br />
<br />
The result was [http://ourradioactiveocean.org/ Our Radioactive Ocean] (ORO), a crowd-funded campaign to measure the levels of radioactive cesium along the West Coast of North America and around Hawaii. Our goal was to empower individuals and groups to collect water at their favorite beach with our simple kit, then send the sample to my lab for analysis. In the process, they would take ownership of the information we returned to them and hopefully become ambassadors for the scientific process and the knowledge that we assembled, one sample at a time.<br />
<br />
What started out as a blank map of the eastern North Pacific, is now dotted with well over 300 sample locations. More importantly, we have photos of families, surfing groups, and classrooms, all wading into the ocean to collect a sample—their sample. The results we have assembled show that radioactivity levels in the ocean off the West Coast are lower today than they were in the 1960s when similar radioactive contaminants were first released as fallout from nuclear weapons testing.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Study of workers in nuclear industry ==<br />
[http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low-dose-radiation-1.17876 Researchers pin down risks of low-dose radiation] Alison Abbott; Nature News; 8 Jul 2015<br />
{{Quote|<br />
"Large study of nuclear workers shows that even tiny doses slightly boost risk of leukaemia<br />
<br />
"A landmark international study has now provided the strongest support yet for the idea that long-term exposure to low-dose radiation increases the risk of leukaemia, although the rise is only minuscule"<br />
<br />
study of workers in the nuclear industry whose exposure (at work) is monitored by dosimeters, claims increased risks of leukaemia, but as the comments to the article point out there are possible flaws in these findings.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Plutonium ===<br />
<br />
[https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818013.pdf Plutonium and Health: How great is the risk?] George L. Voelz; Los Alamos Science; 2000<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Because it is radioactive, plutonium is dangerous when it finds its way into the human body. Driven by knowledge of the possible harmful health effects of plutonium, scientists carefully warned the public about them and established procedures to protect the workers in plutonium-processing facilities. In fact, their care was so extreme that many believe it was the scientists themselves who promoted an overstated idea that became well known at the end of the 1940s: “Plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man.”<br />
<br />
In this article, we will give a realistic assessment of the health risks of plutonium.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Genetic factors in radiation susceptibility ==<br />
There is evidence that individuals' susceptibility to cancer from low-dose radiation depends on genetic factors.<br />
<br />
[http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/03/10/cancer-low-dose-radiation/ New Clues About the Risk of Cancer From Low-dose Radiation: Berkeley Lab research could lead to ways to ID people particularly susceptible to cancer] <br />
<br />
referencing:<br />
<br />
[http://www.nature.com/articles/srep08919 Identification of genetic loci that control mammary tumor susceptibility through the host microenvironment] Pengju Zhang et al; Scientific Reports; 9 Mar 2015<br />
<br />
== Treatment for radiation exposure ==<br />
=== Pectin "cure" ===<br />
[https://www.amazon.com/Propectin-2-Boxes-90-Packets-Manufactured/dp/B00Z1HKJ76/ref=as_li_ss_tl Propectin]<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17069947 Comparison of Prussian blue and apple-pectin efficacy on 137Cs decorporation in rats.] Le Gall B, Taran F, Renault D, Wilk JC, Ansoborlo E.; Biochimie; Nov 2006<br />
{{Quote|Cesium-137 (137Cs) is one of the most important nuclear fission elements that contaminated the environment after the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine (1986). The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of two chelating agent, Prussian blue and apple-pectin on 137cesium decorporation in rats. Rats were intravenously injected with a solution of 137cesium (5 kBq per rat). Chelating agents, Prussian blue or apple-pectin were given immediately after Cs contamination and during 11 days by addition of each chelating agent in drinking water at a concentration corresponding to 400 mg kg(-1) day(-1). Efficiency was evaluated 11 days after contamination (at the end of treatment) through their ability to promote Cs excretion and to reduce the radionuclide accumulation in some retention compartments (blood, liver, kidneys, spleen, skeleton and in the remaining carcass). In these conditions after treatment with Prussian blue a fivefold increase in fecal excretion of Cs was observed and was associated with a reduction in the radionuclide retention in the main organs measured. In contrast, no significant differences were observed between untreated rats and rats treated with apple-pectin. These observations were discussed in terms of ability of pectins to bind Cs and compared to recently published results obtained after treatment of Cs-contaminated children with this chelate.}}<br />
<br />
== "Radiophobia" ==<br />
<br />
[http://scienceforsustainability.org/docs/nuclear/Chernobyl/Radiophobia:%20Long-Term%20Psychological%20Consequences%20of%20Chernobyl%20%5bmilmed-167-suppl_1-134%5d.pdf Radiophobia: Long-Term Psychological Consequences of Chernobyl] Ross H. Pastel; Military Medicine; 2002<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The primary health effect of Chernobyl has been widespread psychological distress in liquidators (workers brought In for cleanup), evacuees, residents of contaminated areas, and residents of adjacent noncontaminated areas. Several psychoneurological syndromes characterized by multiple unexplained physical symptoms including fatigue, sleep and mood disturbances, impaired memory and concentration, and muscle and/or joint pain have been reported in the Russian literature.<br />
<br />
These syndromes, which resemble chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, are probably not due to direct effects of radiation because they do not appear to be dose related to radiation exposure and because they occur in areas of both high and low contamination.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Footnotes and References ==<br />
<references /></div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Chornobyl&diff=5518Chornobyl2022-09-19T10:00:06Z<p>Sisussman: /* Wildlife */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 2]]<br />
[[Category:Nuclear accidents]]<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia articles on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Chernobyl disaster] and the <br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant]<br />
give good accounts of the plant itself and the 1986 accident at Reactor No. 4.<br />
<br />
World Nuclear News' article on [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx RBMK Reactors] discusses the problems with the design of reactor at Chernobyl.<br />
<br />
64 people, 31 of them reactor staff and emergency workers, are confirmed to have died from radiation.<br />
Total deaths from the accident are predicted to be between 4,000 according to The Chernobyl Forum and 25,000 according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, with a report commissioned by the European Greens putting the number at up to 60,000 and a widely-discredited report by the founder of Greenpeace's Russian chapter claiming a million worldwide.<br />
<br />
'''The Chernobyl Gallery'''<br />
* [http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/ The Disaster] <br />
* [http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/cause/ Cause]<br />
* [http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/ Timeline of events]<br />
* [http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/ Radiation Levels]<br />
<br />
{{#evt:service=youtube<br />
| id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwtNvnWZjZY<br />
| alignment=right<br />
}}<br />
<br><br />
This [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwtNvnWZjZY video] by architect Mike Bell shows 3-D animations and explanations of the inner workings of the Chernobyl nuclear power station, illustrating its vulnerability to the accident that blew it up, and how it was different from reactors outside the USSR.<br />
''Note that the commentary is incorrect about the RBMK being the only reactor design which can be refuelled online: [[CANDU]], [[Magnox]], and [[AGR]] reactors also have this capability.''<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== What Happened ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ WHO]<br />
<br />
[https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/ Chernobyl Nuclear Accident] IAEA<br />
<br />
[http://www.edleaver.com/Archives/2013/06/PandorasBackPages/PandorasBackPages.php#x1-240009.2 Chernobyl 1986] Ed Leaver; <br />
[http://www.edleaver.com/Archives/2013/06/PandorasBackPages/PandorasBackPages.php Pandora's Back Pages]<br />
: Firstly, Chernobyl was most emphatically NOT a light-water reactor. Not in any conventional sense of the word. The RBMK-1000 was a water-cooled graphite-moderated boiling water design originally intended to simultaneously produce both electric power and weapons grade plutonium. This design would never have been implemented in the west. Nonetheless, it was implemented, and with catastrophic results. From Chernobyl Accident 1986 (Updated June 2013):<br />
:: “The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine was the product of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the plant operators. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture.”31<br />
<br />
[https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences Chernobyl Accident and Its Consequences] Nuclear Energy Institute; May 2019<br />
: fact sheet<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/04/26/will-the-truth-about-chernobyl-ever-come-out/ Will The Truth About Chernobyl Ever Come Out?] James Conca; Forbes; 26 Apr 2016<br />
: Yes, it already has, but the truth is so much more boring than the assertions of megadeath, that it generally gets ignored. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident (today April 26th) and the 5th anniversary of the Fukushima accident (March 11th). These two events constitute the only serious accidents in the nuclear power industry in history. People died as a result of Chernobyl, but no one has yet died from Fukushima. There were some less severe accidents, mostly at weapons sites, but the nuclear power industry is still the safest industry in the world by any measure.<br />
<br />
[https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-famous-photo-of-chernobyls-most-dangerous-radioactive-material-was-a-selfie The Famous Photo of Chernobyl's Most Dangerous Radioactive Material Was a Selfie] David Goldenberg; Atlas Obscura; 24 Jan 2016<br />
: Corium has been created outside of the lab at least five times, according to Mitchell Farmer, a senior nuclear engineer at Argonne National Laboratory, another Department of Energy center outside of Chicago. Corium formed once at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania in 1979, once in Chernobyl, and three separate times during the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan in 2011. Farmer creates modified versions of corium in the lab in order to better understand how to mitigate accidents in the future. Research on the substance has found, for example, that dumping water on it after it forms actually does stop some fission products from decaying and producing more dangerous isotopes.<br />
<br />
: Of the five corium creations, only Cherobyl’s has escaped its containment. With no water to cool the mass, the radioactive sludge moved through the unit over the course a week following the meltdown, taking on molten concrete and sand to go along with the uranium (fuel) and zirconium (cladding) molecules. This poisonous lava flowed downhill, eventually burning through the floor of the building. When nuclear inspectors finally accessed the area several months after the initial explosion, they found that 11 tons of it had settled into a three meter wide grey mass at the corner of a steam distribution corridor below. This, they dubbed the Elephant’s Foot. Over the years, the Elephant’s Foot cooled and cracked. Even today, though, it’s still estimated to be slightly above the ambient temperature as the radioactive material decomposes. <br />
<br />
[https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4 A Chernobyl 'suicide squad' of volunteers helped save Europe — here's their amazing true story] Sarak Kramer; Business Insider; 26 Apr 2018<br />
: ''Discusses - with some ambiguity - the story of 3 workers who opened valves in the basement underneath the reactor to release water, to avoid a steam explosion if the still-melting core reached the water.''<br />
<br />
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47227767 Chernobyl: The end of a three-decade experiment] Victoria Gill; BBC; 14 Feb 2019<br />
: Since the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, an area of more than 4,000 square kilometres has been abandoned. That could be about to change, as Victoria Gill discovered during a week-long trip to the exclusion zone.<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3d3rzFTrLg Why Chernobyl Exploded - The Real Physics Behind The Reactor] Scott Manley; YouTube; 8 Jun 2019<br />
: With the TV show doing a great job at delivering its explanation in a manner that most people can easily understand, I felt I wanted to do a more detailed description. So I cover basic reactor physics, explain how the RBMK reactor works, how Xenon 135 works, Why the control rods included graphite tips, and why the reactor became unstable and ran away.<br />
<br />
: Many of the diagrams here are from https://www.nuclear-power.net and they have Lots more information on Nuclear Physics <br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/565727103606315/permalink/1179132982265721/ post discussing video] Eustratius Graham; Facebook; 8 Jun 2019<br />
<br />
[[Joseph Rey Tweets]] *<br />
<br />
== The Arch ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/engineers-race-to-entomb-the-decaying-chernobyl-reactor-video/ Engineers Race to Entomb the Decaying Chernobyl Reactor [Video]] John Wendle; Scientific American; 21 Apr 2016<br />
: A giant arch will enclose the crumbling sarcophagus before radiation leaks get worse, even as plans advance to turn the area into a nature preserve<br />
<br />
[http://artofthebuild.bechtel.com/behind-the-build/enormous-arch-moved-into-place-chornobyl/ They’ve Got It Covered: Enormous Arch Moved Into Place Over Damaged Chornobyl Reactor] Bechtel / The Art Of The Build; 29 Nov 2016<br />
: Thirty years after the world’s worst nuclear disaster, the gargantuan structure built to confine radiation at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant is now in place after inching – literally – into position. The massive arch was slid into place on Teflon-coated steel rails. The arch, known as the “New Safe Confinement,” was built 180 meters (about 200 yards) west of the damaged power plant, the only way for the construction site to be safe enough from radiation to allow workers to build it. The 36,000- metric ton (40,000 short ton) structure began sliding to the east on Nov. 14, moving 60 centimeters (23.6 inches) at a time to come to rest atop the disaster site two weeks later.<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH1bv9fAxiY Unique engineering feat concluded as Chernobyl arch reaches resting place] European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; YouTube; 29 Nov 2016<br />
: Thirty years after the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, the radioactive remains of the power plant’s destroyed reactor 4 have been safely enclosed following one of the world’s most ambitious engineering projects.<br />
Chernobyl’s giant New Safe Confinement (NSC) was moved over a distance of 327 metres from its assembly point to its final resting place, completely enclosing a previous makeshift shelter that was hastily assembled immediately after the 1986 accident.<br />
<br />
: The equipment in the New Safe Confinement will now be connected to the new technological building which will serve as a control room for future operations inside the arch. The New Safe Confinement will be sealed off from the environment hermetically. Finally, after intensive testing of all equipment and commissioning, handover of the New Safe Confinement to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant administration is expected in November 2017.<br />
<br />
== Casualties and Health Effects ==<br />
<br />
[https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?] Hannah Ritchie; Our World In Data; 24 Jul 2017<br />
{{Quote|<br />
When it comes to the safety of nuclear energy, discussion often quickly turns towards the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986) and Fukushima in Japan (2011). These two events were by far the largest nuclear incidents in history; the only disasters to receive a level 7 (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale.<br />
<br />
How many deaths did each of these events cause?<br />
<br />
When it comes to nuclear accidents there are really two fatal impacts to consider: the first being the number of direct deaths which occurred either at the time of incident, or in the days which followed (i.e. the acute impacts); the second being the long-term (chronic) impacts of radiation exposure, which has known links to the incidence of several forms of cancer.<br />
<br />
In the case of Chernobyl, 31 people died as a direct result of the accident; two died from blast effects and a further 29 firemen died as a result of acute radiation exposure (where acute refers to infrequent exposure over a short period of time) in the days which followed.1<br />
<br />
The number of people who were impacted over long-term radiation exposure is more difficult to discern and remains highly contested. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html The Chernobyl accident - UNSCEAR's assessments of the radiation effects] <br />
{{Quote|<br />
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor that occurred on 26 April 1986 was the most serious accident ever to occur in the nuclear power industry. The reactor was destroyed in the accident and considerable amounts of radioactive material were released to the environment. The accident caused the deaths, within a few weeks, of 30 workers and radiation injuries to over a hundred others. In response, the authorities evacuated, in 1986, about 115,000 people from areas surrounding the reactor and subsequently relocated, after 1986, about 220,000 people from Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The accident caused serious social and psychological disruption in the lives of those affected and vast economic losses over the entire region. Large areas of the three countries were contaminated with radioactive materials, and radionuclides from the Chernobyl release were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf UNSCEAR Annex D]<br />
<br />
[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident] U.S. NRC<br />
{{Quote|Experts conclude some cancer deaths may eventually be attributed to Chernobyl over the lifetime of the emergency workers, evacuees and residents living in the most contaminated areas. These health effects are far lower than initial speculations of tens of thousands of radiation-related deaths.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/ Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: an overview] World Health Organisation: Ionizing Radiation; Apr 2006<br />
{{Quote|<br />
According to UNSCEAR (2000), 134 liquidators received radiation doses high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Other liquidators have since died but their deaths could not necessarily be attributed to radiation exposure.<br />
<br />
The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs). Since more than 120 000 people in these three groups may eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from all causes.<br />
<br />
Projections concerning cancer deaths among the five million residents of areas with radioactive caesium deposition of 37 kBq/m2 in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine are much less certain because they are exposed to doses slightly above natural background radiation levels. Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5 000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population from radiation exposure, or about 0.6% of the cancer deaths expected in this population due to other causes. Again, these numbers only provide an indication of the likely impact of the accident because of the important uncertainties listed above.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pinning-health-problems-nuclear-disaster/ Radiation's Complications: Pinning Health Problems on a Nuclear Disaster Isn't So Easy] Charles Q. Choi; Scientific American; 18 Mar 2011<br />
{{Quote|Radioactive fallout seems like the obvious culprit behind the negative medical consequences that arose after the explosion at Chernobyl, but it's hard to measure even the dosage those contaminated received, let alone link it to medical problems}}<br />
<br />
[https://amp.theage.com.au/national/let-s-separate-the-urban-myths-from-chernobyl-s-scientific-facts-20190705-p524f7.html Let's separate the urban myths from Chernobyl's scientific facts] Gerry Thomas; The Age; 10 July 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
As someone who has conducted research into the health effects of the Chernobyl accident for 27 years, and written reviews of the impact of radiation exposure following nuclear accidents, I find it alarming that scaremongering about “the true story of Chernobyl” continues unabated.<br />
<br />
In turn, this feeds "radiophobia", a fear of exposure to radiation. Indeed, mental health issues associated with this fear are one of the most significant health consequences of the Chernobyl accident identified by evidence-based studies.<br />
<br />
When fear stops a balanced discussion of energy policy to reduce the potentially more serious health consequences of climate change it becomes a major issue for society as a whole.<br />
<br />
I was born in the 1960s and grew up believing that the word "radiation" had an infinitely dangerous meaning. So I was sceptical about nuclear power. It wasn’t until 1992, when I started to study the health effects of the Chernobyl accident, that I began to question that view.<br />
<br />
Starting my journey from science fiction to scientific fact, I established the Chernobyl Tissue Bank in 1998 with one of the world’s pre-eminent thyroid pathologists to give scientists access to properly curated and documented human samples. This would enable better understanding of the effects of a nuclear accident, with the aim of creating scientific evidence to guide our opinions of the risks and benefits of nuclear power.<br />
<br />
Yet more than 30 years after the accident, some misguided individuals and organisations are still peddling conspiracy theories. Let’s start with some facts.<br />
<br />
Human beings inhabit a naturally radioactive world. If we had not evolved protective mechanisms to deal with the effects of natural radiation, we wouldn’t be here.<br />
<br />
We will all be exposed to between 2 and 3 milliSievert (mSv) of radiation every year from our natural environment. We all ingest about 2 micrograms of uranium every day, and uranium is present in shampoos and sea water.<br />
<br />
While we accept the individual risk associated with the use of radiation for medical diagnosis and treatment, there seems to be less general acceptance of exposure to much lower levels of radiation when it is associated with nuclear power plant accidents.<br />
<br />
While some of those who were children at the time of the Chernobyl accident did receive large doses of radiation to the thyroid gland, the average dose to residents in Belarus and Ukraine who lived in the areas closest to the reactor between 1986 and 1995 was 10mSv, or the equivalent of one whole body CT scan, over nine years.<br />
<br />
In terms of health consequences directly caused by radiation exposure, 146 early responders received doses high enough to result in acute radiation syndrome, and 28 of these died as a result of their exposure.<br />
<br />
A further 19 have died since, but many of these deaths were associated with lifestyle choices, such as smoking, drinking and driving cars.<br />
<br />
It is estimated that some 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer in those who were exposed as children may eventually result. But thyroid cancer is curable, ironically using high doses of the same radioactive isotope that caused the cancer in the first place. We can predict about 160 deaths from these 16,000 cases.<br />
<br />
The World Health Organisation estimated that there may be 4000 further cases of cancer in the workers involved in the clean-up of the Chernobyl reactor site. These workers received larger doses than the population living near the reactor.<br />
<br />
However, 33 years after the accident, there has been no observed increase in solid cancers in these workers. There is a report of a slight increase in one form of leukaemia in one group of workers, but the numbers are small, and the increase is not significant and restricted to one of the four groups under study only. There is considerable discussion whether these cases are attributable to radiation exposure or some other cause.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017321542 Current radiological situation in areas of Ukraine contaminated by the Chernobyl accident: Part 1. Human dietary exposure to Caesium-137 and possible mitigation measures] I.Labunska, V.Kashparov, S.Levchuk, D.Santillo, P.Johnston, S.Polishchuk, N.Lazarev, Y.Khomutinin; Environment International; Aug 2018<br />
{{Quote|Highlights<br />
*First report on dynamics of 137Cs content in cow's milk from Chernobyl affected areas in Ukraine.<br />
*Key factors responsible for milk contamination by 137Cs have been identified.<br />
*Average 137Cs activity concentrations in milk still exceed Ukrainian PL in several settlements.<br />
*Exceedance of PL for 137Cs in cow's milk may persist until 2040 without remedial actions.<br />
*Mitigation measures can decrease an effective dose to below the limit of 1 mSv/year.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDFNBKYY5I Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster] Jones & Co, Sky News; Youtube; 19 Jun 2019<br />
{{Quote| Andrew Bolt interviews veteran Chernobyl US Medical Specialist Dr. Robert Peter Gale who was invited by President Gorbachev to treat Russians who were affected by the Chernobyl nuclear power station explosion. According to anti-nuclear activists the deaths associated with this disaster was in excess of a million people, but Dr. Gale has the real number of casualties.}}<br />
<br />
=== Radiophobia ===<br />
[http://scienceforsustainability.org/docs/nuclear/Chernobyl/Radiophobia:%20Long-Term%20Psychological%20Consequences%20of%20Chernobyl%20%5bmilmed-167-suppl_1-134%5d.pdf Radiophobia: Long-Term Psychological Consequences of Chernobyl] Ross H. Pastel; Military Medicine; 2002<br />
{{Quote|The primary health effect of Chemobyl has been widespread psychological distress in liquidators (workers brought In for cleanup), evacuees, residents of contaminated areas, and residents of adjacent noncontaminated areas. Several psychoneurological syndromes characterized by multiple unexplained physical symptoms including fatigue, sleep and mood disturbances, impaired memory and concentration, and muscle and/or joint pain have been reported in the Russian literature.<br />
<br />
These syndromes, which resemble chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, are probably not due to direct effects of radiation because they do not appear to be dose related to radiation exposure and because they occur in areas of both high and low contamination.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Birth defects ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248180/pdf/bmjcred00044-0022.pdf The victims of Chernobyl in Greece: induced abortions after the accident] D Trichopoulos et al; British Medical Journal; 31 Oct 1987<br />
{{Quote|The Chernobyl nuclear accident took place early in the morning of 26 April 1986, but the extent of the catastrophe became apparent in Greece a few days later. During most of May there was panic because of conflicting data and false rumours. By June more reliable information became available and it was realised that the average effective radiation dose to the population of Greece would not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). This dose is much lower than that which could induce embryonic abnormalities or other non-stochastic effects. In Greece, as in other parts of Europe, many obstetricians initially thought it prudent to interrupt otherwise wanted pregnancies or were unable to resist requests from worried pregnant women and their husbands. Within a few weeks misconceptions in the medical profession were largely cleared, although worries persisted to a variable extent in the general public. We tried to estimate the number of abortions performed because of the Chernobyl accident by recording the actual numbers of liveborn infants in Greece, by month, until the end of March 1987 and comparing these numbers with those expected on the basis of recent birth rate trends.<br />
<br />
We estimated that in Greece during the period of concern after the Chernobyl accident-that is, during most of May 1986-23% of early pregnancies at perceived risk were artifically terminated (((9103-7032)/ 9103)x 100) and that during the whole of 1986 about 2500 otherwise wanted pregnancies (2-5% of the total) were interrupted because of perceived radiation risk (since there was only a small deficit oflive births during March 1987 it is unlikely that there will be an important Chernobyl related deficit of live births in the subsequent months). This empirical estimate is not incompatible with the speculative figure of the International Atomic Energy Agency of 100 000 to 200 000 Chernobyl related induced abortions in the whole of Western Europe.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://ukraineomni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ejmg2017eng.pdf Chornobyl 30 years later: Radiation, pregnancies, and developmental anomalies in Rivne, Ukraine] Wladimir Wertelecki et al; European Journal of Medical Genetics; 30 Sep 2016<br />
{{Quote|In the 30 years since the Chornobyl nuclear power plant disaster, there is evidence of persistent levels of incorporated ionizing radiation in adults, children and pregnant women in the surrounding area. Measured levels of Cesium-137 vary by region, and may be influenced by dietary and water sources as well as proximity to nuclear power plants. Since 2000, comprehensive, population-based birth defects monitoring has been performed in selected regions of Ukraine to evaluate trends and to generate hypotheses regarding potential causes of unexplained variations in defect rates. Significantly higher rates of microcephaly, neural tube defects, and microphthalmia have been identified in selected regions of Ukraine collectively known as Polissia compared to adjacent regions collectively termed non-Polissia, and these significantly higher rates were evident particularly in the years 2000-2009. The Polissia regions have also demonstrated higher mean whole body counts of Cesium-137 compared to values in individuals residing in other non-Polissia regions. The potential causal relationship between persistent ionizing radiation pollution and selected congenital anomaly rates supports the need for a more thorough, targeted investigation of the sources of persistent ionizing radiation and the biological plausibility of a potential teratogenic effect.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/150981218802374/permalink/244491246118037/ criticisim of Wertelecki et al] Jaro Franta; Facebook; 28 Apr 2018<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A 2016 report out of Ukraine (with participation of one American, pediatrician Christina D. Chambers, from La Jolla, CA) tries to draw a correlation between incidence of birth defects and radiation. It compares several regions of northern Ukraine, which received different amounts of Cs137 fallout from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Besides the different amounts of fallout and population body burdens (as measured using whole body counters, WBC), the regions have very different surface geology, and consequently different agricultural and dietary habits.<br />
<br />
While providing good data on Cs137 body burdens, the authors never bother to do any dose calculations. In fact, the only time the word “dose” is mentioned, is in this quote: “ The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) implicitly endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that “Because of the relatively low dose levels to which the populations of the Chernobyl affected regions were exposed, there is no evidence or any likelihood of observing decreased fertility among males or females in the general population as a direct result of radiation exposure. These doses are also unlikely to have any major effect on the number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications or the overall health of children.” (IAEA, 2006).”<br />
<br />
But it is simple enough to compare the dose due to Cs137 body burden to the dose from natural potassium-40 (K40). The reported WBC of about 4,000Bq of Cs137 is nearly identical to the typical K40 activity in the human body. The dose from 4kBq of natural K40 is 0.20 mSv/y. But the dose from 4kBq of Cs137 is just 3/4 of that, 0.15 mSv/y, due mainly to different mean beta decay energy (188keV for Cs137 versus 585keV for K40).<br />
<br />
Despite the minuscule dose, the authors insist that, “Concerning the high sensitivity of rapidly developing embryonic tissues to IR damage, even the 3700 Bq limit is likely to be too high to prevent IR teratogenic impacts.” “ These observations along with previous findings (Wertelecki et al., 2016), fully justify the imperative that prospective investigations of 137-Cs WBC temporal trends are needed.”<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the significant differences in birth defects incidence is interesting – the authors’ bogus insinuations about radiation exposure notwithstanding. In particular, the low rate of folic acid dietary supplement use by pregnant women in all the regions of the study, suggest that differences in diet of the populations in the regions play an important role (again, due to very different surface geology, and consequently different agricultural and dietary habits).<br />
<br />
This sort of effect has been observed in other countries, including several areas of the US, where dietary deficiency of folic acid (and formerly inadequate supplement distribution or inclusion in consumer food products) have been observed to result in relatively high rates of birth defects. In fact, one such epidemiological case was found in a population in the western US – and was blamed by activists on the nearby Hanford nuclear reservation. Of course the correct preventive measure was widespread folic acid supplementation, not anything to do with radiation. Similarly, if the authors of the Ukrainian report convince authorities that it’s the Cs137 that’s to blame, then we can look forward to more birth defects due to dietary folic acid deficiency.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
A paper [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7452506/ De novo congenital malformation frequencies in children from the Bryansk region following the Chernobyl disaster (2000–2017)] by Anton V. Korsakov, Emilia V. Geger, Dmitry G. Lagerev, Leonid I. Pugach, and Timothy A. Mousseau (Heliyon; 6 Aug 2020) <br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
'''Background'''<br />
<br />
Ionizing radiation and chemical pollution can disrupt normal embryonic development and lead to congenital malformations and fetal death. We used official government statistical data for 2000–2017 to test the hypothesis that radioactive and chemical pollutants influenced the frequency of de novo congenital malformations in newborns of the Bryansk region of southwest Russia.<br />
<br />
'''Methods'''<br />
<br />
A variety of statistical approaches were used to assess congenital malformation frequencies including the Shapiro-Wilk test, White's homoscedasticity test, Wilcoxon T-test, Spearman's rank correlation test, and the inversely proportional regression.<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
We found that the frequency of polydactyly, multiple congenital malformations, and the frequency of de novo congenital malformations in newborns were significantly higher (p = 0.001–0.054) in regions with elevated radioactive, chemical and combined contamination. Polydactyly, multiple congenital malformations, and the sum of all congenital malformations were 4.7–7.4 times, 2.5–6.8 times, and 3.5–4.6 times higher in contaminated regions in comparison with the control group. The combination of both radioactive and chemical pollutants led to significantly higher frequencies of multiple congenital malformations when compared to regions with only one pollutant (radiation alone: 2.2 times, p = 0.034; chemical pollutants alone: 1.9 times, p = 0.008) implying that the effects of these stressors were at minimum additive. Although there was a trend for decreasing frequencies of multiple congenital malformations during the 2000–2017 period in areas of combined pollution, the opposite was true for regions with radioactive or chemical pollutants alone. However, overall, our models suggest that the frequency of multiple congenital malformations in areas of combined pollution will significantly (p = 0.027) exceed the frequencies observed for regions containing radioactive or chemical pollutants alone by 39.6% and 45.7% respectively, by 2018–2023.<br />
<br />
'''Conclusion'''<br />
<br />
These findings suggest additive and potentially synergistic effects of radioactive and chemical pollutants on the frequencies of multiple congenital malformations in the Bryansk region of southwestern Russia.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
In a [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344688568_Letter_to_the_editor_of_Heliyon_re_De_novo_congenital_malformation_frequencies_in_children_from_the_Bryansk_region_following_the_Chernobyl_disaster_2000-2017_Heliyon_2020_68_e04616 Letter to the editor of Heliyon re: De novo congenital malformation frequencies in children from the Bryansk region following the Chernobyl disaster (2000–2017). Heliyon. 2020; 6(8): e04616] in October 2020, Alfred Körblein examines the statistical methods in the paper and concludes:<br />
{{Quote| ... the present analysis exhibits an increased prevalence of congenital malformations, albeit not statistically significant, in the highly contaminated south-west territory of Oblast Bryansk. The statistical power of the study could be substantially increased if all birth defects were included. Furthermore, a pooled analysis with data from Oblast Gomel in Belarus is recommended.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Environmental effects ==<br />
[http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1239_web.pdf ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT AND THEIR REMEDIATION: TWENTY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE] International Atomic Energy Authority<br />
: Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group ‘Environment’<br />
<br />
=== Wildlife ===<br />
{{#evt:<br />
service=youtube<br />
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaUNhqnpiOE<br />
|alignment=right<br />
|container=frame<br />
|description='''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaUNhqnpiOE "Wildlife Takeover: How Animals Reclaimed Chernobyl" - Free Documentary - Nature; 8 Jan 2021]'''<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/04/14/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ “What About Radioactive Wastelands?” A Look at Chernobyl’s Effects on Nature] Iida Ruishalme; Thoughtscapism; 14 Apr 2019<br />
: Chernobyl’s effects on plants and animals<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200218074733/http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is arguably a Nature Reserve] Colin Barras; BBC; 22 April 2016 ''(via Wayback Machine)''<br />
<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/arts/television/radioactive-wolves-on-pbs-review.html?_r=0 In Dead Zone of Chernobyl, Animal Kingdom Thrives] MIKE HALE; New York Times; 18 Oct 2011 ''(paywalled)''<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32452085 Cameras reveal the secret lives of Chernobyl's wildlife] Mark Kinver, Environment reporter; BBC; 26 Apr 2015<br />
{{Quote|Automatic cameras in the Ukrainian side of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone have provided an insight into the previously unseen secret lives of wildlife that have made the contaminated landscape their home.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wildlife-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-bears-wolves-rare-horses-roam-forests-1477124 Wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone: Bears, Wolves and Rare Horses Roam the Forests] David Sim; International Business Times; 28 Nov 2014<br />
{{Quote|Camera traps set up in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone have photographed many species of wildlife roaming the forests.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/radioactive-wolves-introduction/7108/ Radioactive Wolves] PBS; 19 Oct 2011<br />
{{Quote|<br />
In 1986 a nuclear meltdown at the infamous Chernobyl power plant in present-day Ukraine left miles of land in radioactive ruins. Residents living in areas most contaminated by the disaster were evacuated and relocated by government order, and a no-man’s land of our own making was left to its own devices. In the ensuing 25 years, forests, marshes, fields and rivers reclaimed the land, reversing the effects of hundreds of years of human development. And surprisingly, this exclusion zone, or “dead zone,” has become a kind of post-nuclear Eden, populated by beaver and bison, horses and birds, fish and falcons – and ruled by wolves.<br />
<br />
Access to the zone is now permitted, at least on a limited basis, and scientists are monitoring the surviving wildlife in the area, trying to learn how the various species are coping with the invisible blight of radiation. As the top predators in this new wilderness, wolves best reflect the condition of the entire ecosystem because if the wolves are doing well, the populations of their prey must also be doing well. Accordingly, a key long-term study of the wolves has been initiated to determine their health, their range, and their numbers.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/wildlife_in_chernobyl_debate_over_mutations_and_populations_of_plants_and.html Do Animals in Chernobyl’s Fallout Zone Glow?] Mary Mycio; Slate; ; Jan 2013? (from URL)<br />
: The scientific debate about Europe’s unlikeliest wildlife sanctuary. With discussion of Moller and Mousseau's claims<br />
<br />
[https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/chernobyl-is-now-a-hugely-important-wildlife-refuge Chernobyl is now a hugely important wildlife refuge] Germán Orizaola; Cosmos Magazine; 11 May 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
In March 2019, most of the main research groups working with Chernobyl wildlife met in Portsmouth, England. About 30 researchers from the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Belgium, Norway, Spain and Ukraine presented the latest results of our work. These studies included work on big mammals, nesting birds, amphibians, fish, bumblebees, earthworms, bacteria and leaf litter decomposition.<br />
<br />
These studies showed that at present the area hosts great biodiversity. In addition, they confirmed the general lack of big negative effects of current radiation levels on the animal and plant populations living in Chernobyl. All the studied groups maintain stable and viable populations inside the exclusion zone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/05/dogs-chernobyl-abandoned-pets-stray-exclusion-zone Meet the dogs of Chernobyl – the abandoned pets that formed their own canine community] Julie McDowall; The Guardian; 5 Feb 2018<br />
{{Quote|Hundreds of stray dogs have learned to survive in the woods around the exclusion zone – mainly descendants of those left behind after the nuclear disaster, when residents were banned from taking their beloved pets to safety}}<br />
<br />
==== Moller & Mousseau ====<br />
<br />
[http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1616/1443 Birds prefer to breed in sites with low radioactivity in Chernobyl] A.P Møller, T.A Mousseau; Proceedings of the Royal Society / Biological Sciences; 7 Jun 2007<br />
{{Quote|Low-level radioactive contamination may affect choice of breeding site and life-history decisions if (i) radioactivity directly affects body condition or (ii) it affects resource abundance that then secondarily influences reproductive decisions. We tested the effects of radioactive contamination on nest-site choice and reproduction in a community of hole nesting birds by putting up nest boxes in areas differing in levels of background radiation. Great tit Parus major and pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca significantly avoided nest boxes in heavily contaminated areas, with a stronger effect in flycatchers than in tits. These preferences could not be attributed to variation in habitat quality or resource abundance, as determined by analyses of habitat use and the relationship between radiation and life-history characters. Likewise, none of these effects could be attributed to individuals of a specific age breeding in the most contaminated areas. Laying date and clutch size were not significantly related to dose rate in either species. Hatching success was depressed by elevated radioactive contamination, interacting with habitat in the great tit and with laying date in the pied flycatcher. Interspecific differences in effects of radiation on nest-site choice suggest that species respond in a species-specific manner to radiation, perhaps related to differences in migratory habits. We suggest that individual body condition rather than secondary effects of radiation on resource abundance account for the effects on nest box use and hatching success.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11473-chernobyl-based-birds-avoid-radioactive-nests/ Chernobyl-based birds avoid radioactive nests] Catherine Brahic; New Scientist; 28 Mar 2007<br />
<br />
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6946210.stm Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven'] Mark Kinver, Science and nature reporter; BBC; 14 Aug 2007<br />
{{quote|The idea that the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has created a wildlife haven is not scientifically justified, a study says.}}<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.01009.x/full Condition, reproduction and survival of barn swallows from Chernobyl] A. P. MØLLER, T. A. MOUSSEAU, G. MILINEVSKY, A. PEKLO, E. PYSANETS, T. SZÉP; Journal of Animal Ecology; 17 Oct 2005<br />
<br />
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl.html Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving] Kate Ravilious; National Geographic; 26 Apr 2006<br />
{{quote|<br />
But while wildlife seems to be proliferating in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, not everyone is convinced that these plants and animals are healthy.<br />
<br />
Moller and Mousseau have shown that certain species in the area have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities than normal. <br />
<br />
"We find an elevated frequency of partial albinism in barn swallows, meaning they have tufts of white feathers," Mousseau said.<br />
<br />
Late last year Moller and Mousseau published a paper in the Journal of Animal Ecology showing that reproductive rates and annual survival rates are much lower in the Chernobyl birds than in control populations.<br />
<br />
"In Italy around 40 percent of the barn swallows return each year, whereas the annual survival rate is 15 percent or less for Chernobyl," Mousseau said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949314.stm Chernobyl 'shows insect decline'] Victoria Gill, Science reporter; BBC News; 18 Mar 2009<br />
{{quote|According to researchers working in the exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl, there is a "strong signal of decline associated with the contamination". The team found that bumblebees, butterflies, grasshoppers, dragonflies and spiders were affected. They report their findings in the journal Biology Letters. Professor Timothy Mousseau from the University of South Carolina, US, and Dr Anders Moller from the University of Paris-Sud worked together on the project. The two researchers previously published findings that low-level radiation in the area has a negative impact on bird populations.}}<br />
<br />
[https://theconversation.com/at-chernobyl-and-fukushima-radioactivity-has-seriously-harmed-wildlife-57030 At Chernobyl and Fukushima, radioactivity has seriously harmed wildlife] Timothy A. Mousseau; The Conversation; 25 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quote|in the past decade population biologists have made considerable progress in documenting how radioactivity affects plants, animals and microbes. My colleagues and I have analyzed these impacts at Chernobyl, Fukushima and naturally radioactive regions of the planet. Our studies provide new fundamental insights about consequences of chronic, multigenerational exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation. Most importantly, we have found that individual organisms are injured by radiation in a variety of ways. The cumulative effects of these injuries result in lower population sizes and reduced biodiversity in high-radiation areas.}}<br />
<br />
[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/scientific-meltdown-at-chernobyl-2009-03-24/ Scientific meltdown at Chernobyl?] Brendan Borrell, Scientific American blog; 24 Mar 2009<br />
{{Quote|Twenty years after the Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine, radiation is still hammering the region's insect, spider, and bird populations. At least that's what Reuters and the BBC reported last week based on a paper published in the journal Biology Letters by ecologists Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina and Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud. For the past 10 years, the duo has been running transects through the region counting wildlife and measuring radiation levels with dosimeters. "We wanted to ask the question: Are there more or fewer animals in the contaminated areas," Moller told Reuters. "Clearly there were fewer." But at least one scientist formerly associated with the team is questioning the new research. Sergey Gaschak, a researcher at the Chernobyl Center in Ukraine, told the BBC that he drew "opposite conclusions" from the same data the group collected on birds. This might seem like little more than blunt criticism, but I knew that Møller's research ethics had previously been called into question.}}<br />
<br />
[https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2018/03/11/not-thriving-but-failing/ Not thriving, but failing] Linda Pentz Gunter; Beyond Nuclear International; 11 Mar 2018<br />
{{Quote|<br />
It started with wolves. The packs around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which exploded on April 26, 1986, were thriving, said reports. Benefitting from the absence of human predators, and seemingly unaffected by the high radiation levels that still persist in the area, the wolves, they claimed, were doing better than ever.<br />
<br />
Appearances, however, can be deceptive. Abundant does not necessarily mean healthy. And that is exactly what evolutionary biologist, Dr. Timothy Mousseau and his team began to find out as, over the years, they traveled to and researched in and around the Chernobyl disaster site in the Ukraine. Then, when a similar nuclear disaster hit in Japan — with the triple explosions and meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi on March 11, 2011 — Mousseau’s team added that region to its research itinerary.<br />
<br />
Mousseau has now spent more than 17 years looking at the effects on wildlife and the ecosystem of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. He and his colleagues have also spent the last half dozen years studying how non-human biota is faring in the wake of Fukushima. Ninety articles later, they are able to conclude definitively that animals and plants around Chernobyl and Fukushima are very far indeed from flourishing.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Commentary & Criticism =====<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is arguably a nature reserve] Colin Barras; BBC; 22 April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Anders Møller at University of Paris-Sud and Timothy Mousseau at the University of South Carolina in Columbia have spent 15 years exploring the impact of wildlife in the area. They have reached a very different set of conclusions.<br />
<br />
"In almost all cases, there is a clear signal of the negative effects of radiation on wild populations," says Mousseau. "Even the cuckoo's call is affected."<br />
<br />
For instance, in 2009 Møller and Mousseau performed their own mammal track count in the exclusion zone – albeit on a much smaller scale than the study Smith and his colleagues undertook. The results, published in 2013, suggested that track abundance is low where radiation levels are high.<br />
<br />
Another study the pair published in 2009 suggested that insects and spiders are less abundant in areas of the exclusion zone where radiation levels are high.<br />
<br />
The study suggested there was an impact on insect abundance even in areas of the exclusion zone where radiation levels are now extremely low.<br />
<br />
"Based on Chernobyl studies, not just our own, most of the rigorous scientific reports indicate that there are measurable genetic consequences of exposure to low-dose-rate radiation," says Mousseau. Those consequences come either in the form of damage to chromosomes or elevated mutation rates.<br />
<br />
"They're publishing evidence of effects at radiation levels within the range of UK background radiation levels," says Wood.<br />
<br />
How is it possible for radiation levels far below those considered harmful to have a significant impact on animal health?<br />
<br />
Møller and Mousseau argue that the studies used to establish safe levels of radiation are largely performed under laboratory conditions. Out in the real world, animals face a multitude of ecological pressures that are not replicated in those lab studies. In natural settings, animals might be weaker and consequently more vulnerable to the effects of low-level radiation.<br />
<br />
However, Møller and Mousseau are virtually alone in their views. Most of the other researchers who have spent time working at Chernobyl take issue with their findings.<br />
<br />
"I very much question some of the dose rates where effects are being claimed on the insects," says Smith. "We did some studies on aquatic invertebrates. We didn't find any of these effects even in the most contaminated lakes."<br />
<br />
It is not just Møller and Mousseau's findings that are questioned. Their research methods have also come in for criticism. It does not help that, in 2002, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled that Møller had fabricated the data for an unrelated study, a claim that he has always denied.<br />
<br />
One of their latest studies claims that bank voles in the exclusion zone have unusually high numbers of cataracts, and that this is linked to radiation levels. It was published in January 2016.<br />
<br />
Smith, Beresford, Wood and several of their colleagues posted a lengthy comment beneath the online version of the paper. They highlight what they claim are a multitude of problems and flaws with the science. In particular, they argue that freezing animals for later study can inadvertently cloud their eyes in a way that could give the false impression that they had cataracts.<br />
<br />
However, Møller strongly rejects these criticisms of his research. "There is no effect of freezing, neither has such an effect ever been shown," he says.<br />
<br />
It is also fair to say that Møller and Mousseau are not quite alone in reporting damaging effects from very low-level radiation exposure. A study by a Japanese research team published in 2012 looked at the biological impact of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. It concluded there were effects on the pale grass blue butterfly even at low-dose exposures.<br />
<br />
In response Beresford, with David Copplestone at the University of Stirling, UK, published an article to highlight what they say are basic errors and misunderstandings about how such studies should be performed.<br />
<br />
This ongoing controversy means that, on the 30th anniversary of Chernobyl, there are two views on its legacy, and they are poles apart.<br />
<br />
Either the evidence from the exclusion zone shows that ecosystems are far more robust to the fallout from nuclear disasters than we thought, or they are more vulnerable than anyone imagined possible. There does not seem to be a way to explain all the results from both sides of the debate, so one side or the other must simply be wrong.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X16300261 Thirty years after the Chernobyl accident: What lessons have we learnt?] N.A.Beresford, S.Fesenko, A.Konoplev, L.Skuterud, J.T.Smith, G.Voigt; Journal of Environmental Radioactivity; June 2016<br />
: A review of 30 years of radioecological studies following the 1986 Chernobyl accident.<br />
: Key contributions to radioecology from post-Chernobyl research are discussed.<br />
<br />
=== Wildfires ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26933-rise-in-wildfires-may-resurrect-chernobyls-radiation/ Rise in wildfires may resurrect Chernobyl’s radiation] New Scientist; 9 Feb 2015<br />
: Nikolaos Evangeliou at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research and colleagues have analysed the impact of forest fires in the region, and calculated their future frequency and intensity. To do so they fed satellite images of real fires in 2002, 2008 and 2010, and measurements of radioactive caesium-137 deposited on the area, to models of air movements and fires. They estimate that of the 85 petabecquerels of radioactive caesium released by the Chernobyl accident, between 2 and 8 PBq still lurk in the upper layer of soil in the exclusion zone. In another ecosystem this might gradually fall with erosion or the removal of vegetation. But in these abandoned forests, says Evangeliou, “trees pick up the radioactive ions, then dead leaves return it to the soil”. The team calculates that the three fires released from 2 to 8 per cent of the caesium, some 0.5 PBq, in smoke. This was distributed over eastern Europe, and detected as far south as Turkey and as far west as Italy and Scandinavia. “The simulation probably underestimates the potential risks,” says Ian Fairlie, former head of the UK government’s radiation risk committee, who has studied the health impacts of Chernobyl. That’s because the estimate depends on the half-life the team assumed for Cs-137, he says, and some investigators believe it is longer. The team’s calculated release would have given people in the nearby Ukrainian capital, Kiev, an average dose of 10 microsieverts of radiation – 1 per cent of the permitted yearly dose. “This is very small,” says Tim Mousseau of the University of South Carolina at Columbia, a co-author of the study. “But these fires serve as a warning of where these contaminants can go. Should there be a larger fire, quite a bit more could end up on populated areas.”<br />
<br />
== Re-occupation of exclusion zone ==<br />
<br />
[https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/04/14/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ “What About Radioactive Wastelands?” A Look at Chernobyl’s Effects on Nature] Iida Ruishalme; Thoughtscapism; 14 Apr 2019<br />
: But is the Zone uninhabitable for people?<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/9646437/The-women-living-in-Chernobyls-toxic-wasteland.html The women living in Chernobyl's toxic wasteland]<br />
Holly Morris; Daily Telegraph; 8 Nov 2012<br />
: Decades after Chernobyl's nuclear disaster, despite the severely contaminated ground, government objections and the deaths of many fellow 'self-settlers’, a community of determined babushkas remains.<br />
<br />
[http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/photo-gallery/chernobyl-exclusion-zone-resettlers.27110/ Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Resettlers] thegrimfandango; Amateur Photographer; 15 Oct 2013<br />
: After the worst nuclear disaster in history at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, over 200,000 people living within a 30km radius were evacuated to other cities, most never to return. Some, desperately unhappy with their new lives began to break back into the exclusion zone to resettle despite the risks. Although the exclusion zone is still in place and will remain so for many years due to elevated levels of radioactivity, the government eventually legalised a handful of resettlers, all over 70 years old. Ivan and his wife live happily with their cats amongst the radioactive hotspots, a few kilometers from the nuclear power plant.<br />
<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/mar/07/photography-guillaume-herbaut-chernobyl-strakholissia Big Picture: Chernobyl Riviera, by Guillaume Herbaut] Hannah Booth; Guardian; 7 Mar 2014<br />
: Each week, the Guardian Weekend magazine's editorial team choose a picture, or set of pictures, that particularly tickle their fancy. This week their choice is Guillaume Herbaut's Chernobyl Riviera<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6oKR4L1hW8 'Life is easy': The self settlers of Chernobyl] YouTube; 26 Apr 2016<br />
: Thirty years after the worst man made catastrophe 'The Chernobyl nuclear disaster' some people to continue to live in the area. They are called the 'Self Settlers' and their life is easier than ever.<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hbqLBp_HI Holly Morris: Why stay in Chernobyl? Because it's home.] Holly Morris / TED; YouTube; 31 Oct 2013<br />
: Chernobyl was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident and, for the past 27 years, the area around the plant has been known as the Exclusion Zone. And yet, a community of about 200 people live there -- almost all of them elderly women. These proud grandmas defied orders to relocate because their connection to their homeland and to their community are "forces that rival even radiation."<br />
<br />
[https://www.fastcompany.com/3020853/stunning-images-of-the-thousands-of-people-who-still-live-near-chernobyl-and-fukushima Stunning Images Of The Thousands Of People Who Still Live Near Chernobyl And Fukushima] Ben Schiller; Fast Company; 31 Oct 2013<br />
: “To the world, Chernobyl and Fukushima seem like dangerous places, but for the people who live there, that danger is simply a fact of life,” says photojournalist Michael Forster Rothbart, who spent two years cataloging the lives of people living in the shadow of nuclear accidents. These images are the result.<br />
<br />
“Most photojournalists distort Chernobyl. They visit briefly, expecting danger and despair, and come away with photos of deformed children and abandoned buildings,” Forster Rothbart says in his new book, Would You Stay? “This sensationalist approach obscures more complex stories about how displaced communities adapt and survive.”<br />
<br />
[http://www.claireabaker.co.uk/the-self-settlers-of-chernobyl/ THE SELF SETTLERS OF CHERNOBYL] Claire Baker; blog; 21 Jun 2017<br />
<br />
[https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/jpa853/what-life-looks-like-for-people-living-in-chernobyls-nuclear-exclusion-zone What Life Looks Like for People Living in Chernobyl's Nuclear Exclusion Zone] Joseph Marczynski; Vice; 16 Feb 2017<br />
: Visiting the "Samosely", the 140 settlers surviving on crops cultivated in contaminated soil.<br />
<br />
[https://www.businessinsider.com/what-daily-life-inside-chernobyls-exclusion-zone-is-really-like-2019-4 Photos show what daily life is really like inside Chernobyl's exclusion zone, one of the most polluted areas in the world] Katie Canales; Business Insider; 26 Apr 2019<br />
: Interesting, but quotes Greenpeace, and has statements like<br />
:: Ingesting large quantities of radiation puts residents at risk of serious health issues, like thyroid cancer.<br />
: and<br />
:: Victoria Vetrova told the AP in 2016 that her 8-year-old son has an enlarged thyroid, which is a condition that has been linked to radioactive exposure.<br />
<br />
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/moving_to_Chernobyl The people who moved to Chernobyl] Zhanna Bezpiatchuk; BBC; <br />
: The Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 left a ring of ghost villages as residents fled, fearing radiation poisoning. <br />
<br />
: But now people are choosing to live in the crumbling houses on the edge of the exclusion zone.<br />
<br />
== Media & Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
[http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9e0d2b5aacdacc8f6d679bba2&id=fa0b6777a2&e=45743fde61 No Nukes News] 26 Apr 2016<br />
: ''Collection of claims and anecdotes about Chernobyl, and other issues''<br />
<br />
[https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/whats-really-going-on-at-fukushima/ What’s Really Going on at Fukushima?] ROBERT HUNZIKER; Counterpunch; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: ''Also includes Helen Caldicott-derived claims about Chernobyl''<br />
<br />
''See also [[A manual for survival -- Kate Brown]]''<br />
<br />
=== 2009 HBO mini-series ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.nei.org/news/2019/viewers-guide-to-hbo-miniseries-chernobyl A Viewer's Guide to HBO's Chernobyl Miniseries] MATT WALD; Nuclear Energy Institute; 1 May 2019<br />
: HBO, known for outstanding drama, will begin a five-part miniseries called Chernobyl on May 6, based on the 1986 nuclear accident in the Soviet Union. Viewers might see the Hollywood treatment and wonder what the relevance is outside the USSR.<br />
<br />
: The short answer is: not much.<br />
<br />
: In the spring of 1986, a steam explosion in a Soviet reactor, followed by an intense fire, released a plume of radioactive particles. Moscow denied everything and denounced the reports of high radiation readings as part of “a poisoned cloud of anti-Sovietism.” The explosion and fire, the heroic efforts to limit the damage, the inept government response, and anything with “nuclear” in the title all make for good television.<br />
<br />
: We can learn something from the event, one of the biggest industrial tragedies of the 1980s. However, much of the underlying circumstances were particular to the Chernobyl reactor and the Soviet government’s response.<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/04/25/chernobyl-truth-drowns-in-dramatized-movie/ Chernobyl Truth Drowns In Dramatized Movie] James Conca; Forbes; 25 Apr 2019<br />
: April 26, 2019 marks the 33rd anniversary of the worst commercial nuclear accident in the world, and the only one to kill anyone with radioactivity – the Soviet Union’s RBMK reactor meltdown at the Chernobyl power plant in 1986.<br />
<br />
: A few weeks from now, HBO will show a new miniseries, Chernobyl, that will dramatize the event. From the trailer, it might actually describe what happened inside the power plant, and nearby surroundings, pretty well. And it will certainly capture the fear very well.<br />
<br />
: But it will fail yet again to describe what happened outside and far away, sensationalizing and exaggerating the effects, and reinforcing the myth that many thousands of people died from radiation in Ukraine, Belarus and Europe.<br />
<br />
: It will not reveal that only the fear of radiation killed anyone outside the immediate area. All health and epidemiological studies ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899336/ 1], [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674166/ 2], [https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences 3], [https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/WHO%20Report%20on%20Chernobyl%20Health%20Effects%20July%2006.pdf 4], [https://www.sfrp.asso.fr/medias/sfrp/documents/5-Balonov.pdf 5], [http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html 6], [http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2008/UNSCEAR_2008_Annex-D-CORR.pdf 7], [http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/info/Safety_and_Security/Safety_of_Plants/jaworowski_chernobyl.pdf 8]) have shown that the long-term mental health effects were the only significant public health consequence of the accident outside of the vicinity of Chernobyl.<br />
<br />
: But the [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mental-health-and-disasters/longterm-mental-health-impacts-of-the-chernobyl-accident/DF45589C5108C31E1105E5C5A6F8F34F fear did cause] about 50,000 deaths of Chernobyl refugees from alcoholism and depression in the decades following, along with over 100,000 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia unnecessary abortions] in the few years following the accident.<br />
<br />
: In 2015, the National Institutes of Health declared that, “In spite of the best efforts of statisticians and epidemiologists, the claimed thousands of Chernobyl-induced cancers and mutations have yet to manifest themselves.”<br />
<br />
: And we have been looking really, really hard for 33 years.<br />
<br />
: Surprisingly, there were three other nuclear reactors at the same Chernobyl plant that kept running for many years afterwards. 3,000 people went to work at the Chernobyl plant every day and had no problem with health or radiation effects.<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/ The Reason They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Is Because They Kill So Few People] Michael Shellenberger; Forbes; 9 May 2019<br />
: In the end, HBO’s “Chernobyl” suggests that whatever the intentions of its producers, it is difficult to make an exciting movie about nuclear disasters without leading viewers to believe that they were much worse than they actually were.<br />
<br />
: Anti-nuclear ideology aside, the entertainment industry has to fictionalize nuclear disasters for the simple reason that they kill so few people.<br />
<br />
[https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-hbos-chernobyl-got-right-and-what-it-got-terribly-wrong What HBO’s “Chernobyl” Got Right, and What It Got Terribly Wrong] Masha Gessen; The New Yorker; 4 Jun 2019<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/ Why HBO's "Chernobyl" Gets Nuclear So Wrong] Michael Shellenberger; Forbes; 6 Jun 2019<br />
: Having now watched all five episodes of “Chernobyl,” and seen the public’s reaction to it, I think it’s obvious that the mini-series terrified millions of people about the technology.<br />
<br />
[https://przekroj.pl/en/culture/comrade-batman-victor-martinovich Comrade Batman] Victor Martinovich; PrzeKroj; 14 Jun 2019<br />
: How HBO’s “Chernobyl” Ignores the Nuances of Soviet Language<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqmOfbe1YbA Chernobyl | Based on a True Story] The Cynical Historian; YouTube; 20 Jun 2019<br />
: Chernobyl seemed sooo good. Plus HBO has a stellar record. This was engrossing procedural drama, my kind of faire. This show definitely propounds some harmful myths.</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Chornobyl&diff=5517Chornobyl2022-09-19T09:59:15Z<p>Sisussman: /* Wildlife */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 2]]<br />
[[Category:Nuclear accidents]]<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia articles on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Chernobyl disaster] and the <br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant]<br />
give good accounts of the plant itself and the 1986 accident at Reactor No. 4.<br />
<br />
World Nuclear News' article on [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx RBMK Reactors] discusses the problems with the design of reactor at Chernobyl.<br />
<br />
64 people, 31 of them reactor staff and emergency workers, are confirmed to have died from radiation.<br />
Total deaths from the accident are predicted to be between 4,000 according to The Chernobyl Forum and 25,000 according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, with a report commissioned by the European Greens putting the number at up to 60,000 and a widely-discredited report by the founder of Greenpeace's Russian chapter claiming a million worldwide.<br />
<br />
'''The Chernobyl Gallery'''<br />
* [http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/ The Disaster] <br />
* [http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/cause/ Cause]<br />
* [http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/ Timeline of events]<br />
* [http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/ Radiation Levels]<br />
<br />
{{#evt:service=youtube<br />
| id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwtNvnWZjZY<br />
| alignment=right<br />
}}<br />
<br><br />
This [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwtNvnWZjZY video] by architect Mike Bell shows 3-D animations and explanations of the inner workings of the Chernobyl nuclear power station, illustrating its vulnerability to the accident that blew it up, and how it was different from reactors outside the USSR.<br />
''Note that the commentary is incorrect about the RBMK being the only reactor design which can be refuelled online: [[CANDU]], [[Magnox]], and [[AGR]] reactors also have this capability.''<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== What Happened ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ WHO]<br />
<br />
[https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/ Chernobyl Nuclear Accident] IAEA<br />
<br />
[http://www.edleaver.com/Archives/2013/06/PandorasBackPages/PandorasBackPages.php#x1-240009.2 Chernobyl 1986] Ed Leaver; <br />
[http://www.edleaver.com/Archives/2013/06/PandorasBackPages/PandorasBackPages.php Pandora's Back Pages]<br />
: Firstly, Chernobyl was most emphatically NOT a light-water reactor. Not in any conventional sense of the word. The RBMK-1000 was a water-cooled graphite-moderated boiling water design originally intended to simultaneously produce both electric power and weapons grade plutonium. This design would never have been implemented in the west. Nonetheless, it was implemented, and with catastrophic results. From Chernobyl Accident 1986 (Updated June 2013):<br />
:: “The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine was the product of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the plant operators. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture.”31<br />
<br />
[https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences Chernobyl Accident and Its Consequences] Nuclear Energy Institute; May 2019<br />
: fact sheet<br />
<br />
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/04/26/will-the-truth-about-chernobyl-ever-come-out/ Will The Truth About Chernobyl Ever Come Out?] James Conca; Forbes; 26 Apr 2016<br />
: Yes, it already has, but the truth is so much more boring than the assertions of megadeath, that it generally gets ignored. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident (today April 26th) and the 5th anniversary of the Fukushima accident (March 11th). These two events constitute the only serious accidents in the nuclear power industry in history. People died as a result of Chernobyl, but no one has yet died from Fukushima. There were some less severe accidents, mostly at weapons sites, but the nuclear power industry is still the safest industry in the world by any measure.<br />
<br />
[https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-famous-photo-of-chernobyls-most-dangerous-radioactive-material-was-a-selfie The Famous Photo of Chernobyl's Most Dangerous Radioactive Material Was a Selfie] David Goldenberg; Atlas Obscura; 24 Jan 2016<br />
: Corium has been created outside of the lab at least five times, according to Mitchell Farmer, a senior nuclear engineer at Argonne National Laboratory, another Department of Energy center outside of Chicago. Corium formed once at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania in 1979, once in Chernobyl, and three separate times during the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan in 2011. Farmer creates modified versions of corium in the lab in order to better understand how to mitigate accidents in the future. Research on the substance has found, for example, that dumping water on it after it forms actually does stop some fission products from decaying and producing more dangerous isotopes.<br />
<br />
: Of the five corium creations, only Cherobyl’s has escaped its containment. With no water to cool the mass, the radioactive sludge moved through the unit over the course a week following the meltdown, taking on molten concrete and sand to go along with the uranium (fuel) and zirconium (cladding) molecules. This poisonous lava flowed downhill, eventually burning through the floor of the building. When nuclear inspectors finally accessed the area several months after the initial explosion, they found that 11 tons of it had settled into a three meter wide grey mass at the corner of a steam distribution corridor below. This, they dubbed the Elephant’s Foot. Over the years, the Elephant’s Foot cooled and cracked. Even today, though, it’s still estimated to be slightly above the ambient temperature as the radioactive material decomposes. <br />
<br />
[https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4 A Chernobyl 'suicide squad' of volunteers helped save Europe — here's their amazing true story] Sarak Kramer; Business Insider; 26 Apr 2018<br />
: ''Discusses - with some ambiguity - the story of 3 workers who opened valves in the basement underneath the reactor to release water, to avoid a steam explosion if the still-melting core reached the water.''<br />
<br />
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47227767 Chernobyl: The end of a three-decade experiment] Victoria Gill; BBC; 14 Feb 2019<br />
: Since the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, an area of more than 4,000 square kilometres has been abandoned. That could be about to change, as Victoria Gill discovered during a week-long trip to the exclusion zone.<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3d3rzFTrLg Why Chernobyl Exploded - The Real Physics Behind The Reactor] Scott Manley; YouTube; 8 Jun 2019<br />
: With the TV show doing a great job at delivering its explanation in a manner that most people can easily understand, I felt I wanted to do a more detailed description. So I cover basic reactor physics, explain how the RBMK reactor works, how Xenon 135 works, Why the control rods included graphite tips, and why the reactor became unstable and ran away.<br />
<br />
: Many of the diagrams here are from https://www.nuclear-power.net and they have Lots more information on Nuclear Physics <br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/565727103606315/permalink/1179132982265721/ post discussing video] Eustratius Graham; Facebook; 8 Jun 2019<br />
<br />
[[Joseph Rey Tweets]] *<br />
<br />
== The Arch ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/engineers-race-to-entomb-the-decaying-chernobyl-reactor-video/ Engineers Race to Entomb the Decaying Chernobyl Reactor [Video]] John Wendle; Scientific American; 21 Apr 2016<br />
: A giant arch will enclose the crumbling sarcophagus before radiation leaks get worse, even as plans advance to turn the area into a nature preserve<br />
<br />
[http://artofthebuild.bechtel.com/behind-the-build/enormous-arch-moved-into-place-chornobyl/ They’ve Got It Covered: Enormous Arch Moved Into Place Over Damaged Chornobyl Reactor] Bechtel / The Art Of The Build; 29 Nov 2016<br />
: Thirty years after the world’s worst nuclear disaster, the gargantuan structure built to confine radiation at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant is now in place after inching – literally – into position. The massive arch was slid into place on Teflon-coated steel rails. The arch, known as the “New Safe Confinement,” was built 180 meters (about 200 yards) west of the damaged power plant, the only way for the construction site to be safe enough from radiation to allow workers to build it. The 36,000- metric ton (40,000 short ton) structure began sliding to the east on Nov. 14, moving 60 centimeters (23.6 inches) at a time to come to rest atop the disaster site two weeks later.<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH1bv9fAxiY Unique engineering feat concluded as Chernobyl arch reaches resting place] European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; YouTube; 29 Nov 2016<br />
: Thirty years after the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, the radioactive remains of the power plant’s destroyed reactor 4 have been safely enclosed following one of the world’s most ambitious engineering projects.<br />
Chernobyl’s giant New Safe Confinement (NSC) was moved over a distance of 327 metres from its assembly point to its final resting place, completely enclosing a previous makeshift shelter that was hastily assembled immediately after the 1986 accident.<br />
<br />
: The equipment in the New Safe Confinement will now be connected to the new technological building which will serve as a control room for future operations inside the arch. The New Safe Confinement will be sealed off from the environment hermetically. Finally, after intensive testing of all equipment and commissioning, handover of the New Safe Confinement to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant administration is expected in November 2017.<br />
<br />
== Casualties and Health Effects ==<br />
<br />
[https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?] Hannah Ritchie; Our World In Data; 24 Jul 2017<br />
{{Quote|<br />
When it comes to the safety of nuclear energy, discussion often quickly turns towards the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986) and Fukushima in Japan (2011). These two events were by far the largest nuclear incidents in history; the only disasters to receive a level 7 (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale.<br />
<br />
How many deaths did each of these events cause?<br />
<br />
When it comes to nuclear accidents there are really two fatal impacts to consider: the first being the number of direct deaths which occurred either at the time of incident, or in the days which followed (i.e. the acute impacts); the second being the long-term (chronic) impacts of radiation exposure, which has known links to the incidence of several forms of cancer.<br />
<br />
In the case of Chernobyl, 31 people died as a direct result of the accident; two died from blast effects and a further 29 firemen died as a result of acute radiation exposure (where acute refers to infrequent exposure over a short period of time) in the days which followed.1<br />
<br />
The number of people who were impacted over long-term radiation exposure is more difficult to discern and remains highly contested. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html The Chernobyl accident - UNSCEAR's assessments of the radiation effects] <br />
{{Quote|<br />
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor that occurred on 26 April 1986 was the most serious accident ever to occur in the nuclear power industry. The reactor was destroyed in the accident and considerable amounts of radioactive material were released to the environment. The accident caused the deaths, within a few weeks, of 30 workers and radiation injuries to over a hundred others. In response, the authorities evacuated, in 1986, about 115,000 people from areas surrounding the reactor and subsequently relocated, after 1986, about 220,000 people from Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The accident caused serious social and psychological disruption in the lives of those affected and vast economic losses over the entire region. Large areas of the three countries were contaminated with radioactive materials, and radionuclides from the Chernobyl release were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere.<br />
<br />
Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf UNSCEAR Annex D]<br />
<br />
[http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident] U.S. NRC<br />
{{Quote|Experts conclude some cancer deaths may eventually be attributed to Chernobyl over the lifetime of the emergency workers, evacuees and residents living in the most contaminated areas. These health effects are far lower than initial speculations of tens of thousands of radiation-related deaths.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/ Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: an overview] World Health Organisation: Ionizing Radiation; Apr 2006<br />
{{Quote|<br />
According to UNSCEAR (2000), 134 liquidators received radiation doses high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Other liquidators have since died but their deaths could not necessarily be attributed to radiation exposure.<br />
<br />
The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs). Since more than 120 000 people in these three groups may eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from all causes.<br />
<br />
Projections concerning cancer deaths among the five million residents of areas with radioactive caesium deposition of 37 kBq/m2 in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine are much less certain because they are exposed to doses slightly above natural background radiation levels. Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5 000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population from radiation exposure, or about 0.6% of the cancer deaths expected in this population due to other causes. Again, these numbers only provide an indication of the likely impact of the accident because of the important uncertainties listed above.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pinning-health-problems-nuclear-disaster/ Radiation's Complications: Pinning Health Problems on a Nuclear Disaster Isn't So Easy] Charles Q. Choi; Scientific American; 18 Mar 2011<br />
{{Quote|Radioactive fallout seems like the obvious culprit behind the negative medical consequences that arose after the explosion at Chernobyl, but it's hard to measure even the dosage those contaminated received, let alone link it to medical problems}}<br />
<br />
[https://amp.theage.com.au/national/let-s-separate-the-urban-myths-from-chernobyl-s-scientific-facts-20190705-p524f7.html Let's separate the urban myths from Chernobyl's scientific facts] Gerry Thomas; The Age; 10 July 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
As someone who has conducted research into the health effects of the Chernobyl accident for 27 years, and written reviews of the impact of radiation exposure following nuclear accidents, I find it alarming that scaremongering about “the true story of Chernobyl” continues unabated.<br />
<br />
In turn, this feeds "radiophobia", a fear of exposure to radiation. Indeed, mental health issues associated with this fear are one of the most significant health consequences of the Chernobyl accident identified by evidence-based studies.<br />
<br />
When fear stops a balanced discussion of energy policy to reduce the potentially more serious health consequences of climate change it becomes a major issue for society as a whole.<br />
<br />
I was born in the 1960s and grew up believing that the word "radiation" had an infinitely dangerous meaning. So I was sceptical about nuclear power. It wasn’t until 1992, when I started to study the health effects of the Chernobyl accident, that I began to question that view.<br />
<br />
Starting my journey from science fiction to scientific fact, I established the Chernobyl Tissue Bank in 1998 with one of the world’s pre-eminent thyroid pathologists to give scientists access to properly curated and documented human samples. This would enable better understanding of the effects of a nuclear accident, with the aim of creating scientific evidence to guide our opinions of the risks and benefits of nuclear power.<br />
<br />
Yet more than 30 years after the accident, some misguided individuals and organisations are still peddling conspiracy theories. Let’s start with some facts.<br />
<br />
Human beings inhabit a naturally radioactive world. If we had not evolved protective mechanisms to deal with the effects of natural radiation, we wouldn’t be here.<br />
<br />
We will all be exposed to between 2 and 3 milliSievert (mSv) of radiation every year from our natural environment. We all ingest about 2 micrograms of uranium every day, and uranium is present in shampoos and sea water.<br />
<br />
While we accept the individual risk associated with the use of radiation for medical diagnosis and treatment, there seems to be less general acceptance of exposure to much lower levels of radiation when it is associated with nuclear power plant accidents.<br />
<br />
While some of those who were children at the time of the Chernobyl accident did receive large doses of radiation to the thyroid gland, the average dose to residents in Belarus and Ukraine who lived in the areas closest to the reactor between 1986 and 1995 was 10mSv, or the equivalent of one whole body CT scan, over nine years.<br />
<br />
In terms of health consequences directly caused by radiation exposure, 146 early responders received doses high enough to result in acute radiation syndrome, and 28 of these died as a result of their exposure.<br />
<br />
A further 19 have died since, but many of these deaths were associated with lifestyle choices, such as smoking, drinking and driving cars.<br />
<br />
It is estimated that some 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer in those who were exposed as children may eventually result. But thyroid cancer is curable, ironically using high doses of the same radioactive isotope that caused the cancer in the first place. We can predict about 160 deaths from these 16,000 cases.<br />
<br />
The World Health Organisation estimated that there may be 4000 further cases of cancer in the workers involved in the clean-up of the Chernobyl reactor site. These workers received larger doses than the population living near the reactor.<br />
<br />
However, 33 years after the accident, there has been no observed increase in solid cancers in these workers. There is a report of a slight increase in one form of leukaemia in one group of workers, but the numbers are small, and the increase is not significant and restricted to one of the four groups under study only. There is considerable discussion whether these cases are attributable to radiation exposure or some other cause.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017321542 Current radiological situation in areas of Ukraine contaminated by the Chernobyl accident: Part 1. Human dietary exposure to Caesium-137 and possible mitigation measures] I.Labunska, V.Kashparov, S.Levchuk, D.Santillo, P.Johnston, S.Polishchuk, N.Lazarev, Y.Khomutinin; Environment International; Aug 2018<br />
{{Quote|Highlights<br />
*First report on dynamics of 137Cs content in cow's milk from Chernobyl affected areas in Ukraine.<br />
*Key factors responsible for milk contamination by 137Cs have been identified.<br />
*Average 137Cs activity concentrations in milk still exceed Ukrainian PL in several settlements.<br />
*Exceedance of PL for 137Cs in cow's milk may persist until 2040 without remedial actions.<br />
*Mitigation measures can decrease an effective dose to below the limit of 1 mSv/year.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDFNBKYY5I Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster] Jones & Co, Sky News; Youtube; 19 Jun 2019<br />
{{Quote| Andrew Bolt interviews veteran Chernobyl US Medical Specialist Dr. Robert Peter Gale who was invited by President Gorbachev to treat Russians who were affected by the Chernobyl nuclear power station explosion. According to anti-nuclear activists the deaths associated with this disaster was in excess of a million people, but Dr. Gale has the real number of casualties.}}<br />
<br />
=== Radiophobia ===<br />
[http://scienceforsustainability.org/docs/nuclear/Chernobyl/Radiophobia:%20Long-Term%20Psychological%20Consequences%20of%20Chernobyl%20%5bmilmed-167-suppl_1-134%5d.pdf Radiophobia: Long-Term Psychological Consequences of Chernobyl] Ross H. Pastel; Military Medicine; 2002<br />
{{Quote|The primary health effect of Chemobyl has been widespread psychological distress in liquidators (workers brought In for cleanup), evacuees, residents of contaminated areas, and residents of adjacent noncontaminated areas. Several psychoneurological syndromes characterized by multiple unexplained physical symptoms including fatigue, sleep and mood disturbances, impaired memory and concentration, and muscle and/or joint pain have been reported in the Russian literature.<br />
<br />
These syndromes, which resemble chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, are probably not due to direct effects of radiation because they do not appear to be dose related to radiation exposure and because they occur in areas of both high and low contamination.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Birth defects ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248180/pdf/bmjcred00044-0022.pdf The victims of Chernobyl in Greece: induced abortions after the accident] D Trichopoulos et al; British Medical Journal; 31 Oct 1987<br />
{{Quote|The Chernobyl nuclear accident took place early in the morning of 26 April 1986, but the extent of the catastrophe became apparent in Greece a few days later. During most of May there was panic because of conflicting data and false rumours. By June more reliable information became available and it was realised that the average effective radiation dose to the population of Greece would not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem). This dose is much lower than that which could induce embryonic abnormalities or other non-stochastic effects. In Greece, as in other parts of Europe, many obstetricians initially thought it prudent to interrupt otherwise wanted pregnancies or were unable to resist requests from worried pregnant women and their husbands. Within a few weeks misconceptions in the medical profession were largely cleared, although worries persisted to a variable extent in the general public. We tried to estimate the number of abortions performed because of the Chernobyl accident by recording the actual numbers of liveborn infants in Greece, by month, until the end of March 1987 and comparing these numbers with those expected on the basis of recent birth rate trends.<br />
<br />
We estimated that in Greece during the period of concern after the Chernobyl accident-that is, during most of May 1986-23% of early pregnancies at perceived risk were artifically terminated (((9103-7032)/ 9103)x 100) and that during the whole of 1986 about 2500 otherwise wanted pregnancies (2-5% of the total) were interrupted because of perceived radiation risk (since there was only a small deficit oflive births during March 1987 it is unlikely that there will be an important Chernobyl related deficit of live births in the subsequent months). This empirical estimate is not incompatible with the speculative figure of the International Atomic Energy Agency of 100 000 to 200 000 Chernobyl related induced abortions in the whole of Western Europe.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://ukraineomni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ejmg2017eng.pdf Chornobyl 30 years later: Radiation, pregnancies, and developmental anomalies in Rivne, Ukraine] Wladimir Wertelecki et al; European Journal of Medical Genetics; 30 Sep 2016<br />
{{Quote|In the 30 years since the Chornobyl nuclear power plant disaster, there is evidence of persistent levels of incorporated ionizing radiation in adults, children and pregnant women in the surrounding area. Measured levels of Cesium-137 vary by region, and may be influenced by dietary and water sources as well as proximity to nuclear power plants. Since 2000, comprehensive, population-based birth defects monitoring has been performed in selected regions of Ukraine to evaluate trends and to generate hypotheses regarding potential causes of unexplained variations in defect rates. Significantly higher rates of microcephaly, neural tube defects, and microphthalmia have been identified in selected regions of Ukraine collectively known as Polissia compared to adjacent regions collectively termed non-Polissia, and these significantly higher rates were evident particularly in the years 2000-2009. The Polissia regions have also demonstrated higher mean whole body counts of Cesium-137 compared to values in individuals residing in other non-Polissia regions. The potential causal relationship between persistent ionizing radiation pollution and selected congenital anomaly rates supports the need for a more thorough, targeted investigation of the sources of persistent ionizing radiation and the biological plausibility of a potential teratogenic effect.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/150981218802374/permalink/244491246118037/ criticisim of Wertelecki et al] Jaro Franta; Facebook; 28 Apr 2018<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A 2016 report out of Ukraine (with participation of one American, pediatrician Christina D. Chambers, from La Jolla, CA) tries to draw a correlation between incidence of birth defects and radiation. It compares several regions of northern Ukraine, which received different amounts of Cs137 fallout from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Besides the different amounts of fallout and population body burdens (as measured using whole body counters, WBC), the regions have very different surface geology, and consequently different agricultural and dietary habits.<br />
<br />
While providing good data on Cs137 body burdens, the authors never bother to do any dose calculations. In fact, the only time the word “dose” is mentioned, is in this quote: “ The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) implicitly endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that “Because of the relatively low dose levels to which the populations of the Chernobyl affected regions were exposed, there is no evidence or any likelihood of observing decreased fertility among males or females in the general population as a direct result of radiation exposure. These doses are also unlikely to have any major effect on the number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications or the overall health of children.” (IAEA, 2006).”<br />
<br />
But it is simple enough to compare the dose due to Cs137 body burden to the dose from natural potassium-40 (K40). The reported WBC of about 4,000Bq of Cs137 is nearly identical to the typical K40 activity in the human body. The dose from 4kBq of natural K40 is 0.20 mSv/y. But the dose from 4kBq of Cs137 is just 3/4 of that, 0.15 mSv/y, due mainly to different mean beta decay energy (188keV for Cs137 versus 585keV for K40).<br />
<br />
Despite the minuscule dose, the authors insist that, “Concerning the high sensitivity of rapidly developing embryonic tissues to IR damage, even the 3700 Bq limit is likely to be too high to prevent IR teratogenic impacts.” “ These observations along with previous findings (Wertelecki et al., 2016), fully justify the imperative that prospective investigations of 137-Cs WBC temporal trends are needed.”<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the significant differences in birth defects incidence is interesting – the authors’ bogus insinuations about radiation exposure notwithstanding. In particular, the low rate of folic acid dietary supplement use by pregnant women in all the regions of the study, suggest that differences in diet of the populations in the regions play an important role (again, due to very different surface geology, and consequently different agricultural and dietary habits).<br />
<br />
This sort of effect has been observed in other countries, including several areas of the US, where dietary deficiency of folic acid (and formerly inadequate supplement distribution or inclusion in consumer food products) have been observed to result in relatively high rates of birth defects. In fact, one such epidemiological case was found in a population in the western US – and was blamed by activists on the nearby Hanford nuclear reservation. Of course the correct preventive measure was widespread folic acid supplementation, not anything to do with radiation. Similarly, if the authors of the Ukrainian report convince authorities that it’s the Cs137 that’s to blame, then we can look forward to more birth defects due to dietary folic acid deficiency.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
A paper [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7452506/ De novo congenital malformation frequencies in children from the Bryansk region following the Chernobyl disaster (2000–2017)] by Anton V. Korsakov, Emilia V. Geger, Dmitry G. Lagerev, Leonid I. Pugach, and Timothy A. Mousseau (Heliyon; 6 Aug 2020) <br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
'''Background'''<br />
<br />
Ionizing radiation and chemical pollution can disrupt normal embryonic development and lead to congenital malformations and fetal death. We used official government statistical data for 2000–2017 to test the hypothesis that radioactive and chemical pollutants influenced the frequency of de novo congenital malformations in newborns of the Bryansk region of southwest Russia.<br />
<br />
'''Methods'''<br />
<br />
A variety of statistical approaches were used to assess congenital malformation frequencies including the Shapiro-Wilk test, White's homoscedasticity test, Wilcoxon T-test, Spearman's rank correlation test, and the inversely proportional regression.<br />
<br />
'''Results'''<br />
<br />
We found that the frequency of polydactyly, multiple congenital malformations, and the frequency of de novo congenital malformations in newborns were significantly higher (p = 0.001–0.054) in regions with elevated radioactive, chemical and combined contamination. Polydactyly, multiple congenital malformations, and the sum of all congenital malformations were 4.7–7.4 times, 2.5–6.8 times, and 3.5–4.6 times higher in contaminated regions in comparison with the control group. The combination of both radioactive and chemical pollutants led to significantly higher frequencies of multiple congenital malformations when compared to regions with only one pollutant (radiation alone: 2.2 times, p = 0.034; chemical pollutants alone: 1.9 times, p = 0.008) implying that the effects of these stressors were at minimum additive. Although there was a trend for decreasing frequencies of multiple congenital malformations during the 2000–2017 period in areas of combined pollution, the opposite was true for regions with radioactive or chemical pollutants alone. However, overall, our models suggest that the frequency of multiple congenital malformations in areas of combined pollution will significantly (p = 0.027) exceed the frequencies observed for regions containing radioactive or chemical pollutants alone by 39.6% and 45.7% respectively, by 2018–2023.<br />
<br />
'''Conclusion'''<br />
<br />
These findings suggest additive and potentially synergistic effects of radioactive and chemical pollutants on the frequencies of multiple congenital malformations in the Bryansk region of southwestern Russia.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
In a [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344688568_Letter_to_the_editor_of_Heliyon_re_De_novo_congenital_malformation_frequencies_in_children_from_the_Bryansk_region_following_the_Chernobyl_disaster_2000-2017_Heliyon_2020_68_e04616 Letter to the editor of Heliyon re: De novo congenital malformation frequencies in children from the Bryansk region following the Chernobyl disaster (2000–2017). Heliyon. 2020; 6(8): e04616] in October 2020, Alfred Körblein examines the statistical methods in the paper and concludes:<br />
{{Quote| ... the present analysis exhibits an increased prevalence of congenital malformations, albeit not statistically significant, in the highly contaminated south-west territory of Oblast Bryansk. The statistical power of the study could be substantially increased if all birth defects were included. Furthermore, a pooled analysis with data from Oblast Gomel in Belarus is recommended.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Environmental effects ==<br />
[http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1239_web.pdf ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT AND THEIR REMEDIATION: TWENTY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE] International Atomic Energy Authority<br />
: Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group ‘Environment’<br />
<br />
=== Wildlife ===<br />
{{#evt:<br />
service=youtube<br />
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaUNhqnpiOE<br />
|alignment=right<br />
|container=frame<br />
|description='''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaUNhqnpiOE "Wildlife Takeover: How Animals Reclaimed Chernobyl" - Free Documentary - Nature; 8 Jan 2021]'''<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/04/14/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ “What About Radioactive Wastelands?” A Look at Chernobyl’s Effects on Nature] Iida Ruishalme; Thoughtscapism; 14 Apr 2019<br />
: Chernobyl’s effects on plants and animals<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200218074733/http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is arguably a Nature Reserve] Colin Barras; BBC; 22 April 2016 ''(via Wayback Machine)''<br />
<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/arts/television/radioactive-wolves-on-pbs-review.html?_r=0 In Dead Zone of Chernobyl, Animal Kingdom Thrives] MIKE HALE; New York Times; 18 Oct 2011<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32452085 Cameras reveal the secret lives of Chernobyl's wildlife] Mark Kinver, Environment reporter; BBC; 26 Apr 2015<br />
{{Quote|Automatic cameras in the Ukrainian side of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone have provided an insight into the previously unseen secret lives of wildlife that have made the contaminated landscape their home.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wildlife-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-bears-wolves-rare-horses-roam-forests-1477124 Wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone: Bears, Wolves and Rare Horses Roam the Forests] David Sim; International Business Times; 28 Nov 2014<br />
{{Quote|Camera traps set up in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone have photographed many species of wildlife roaming the forests.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/radioactive-wolves-introduction/7108/ Radioactive Wolves] PBS; 19 Oct 2011<br />
{{Quote|<br />
In 1986 a nuclear meltdown at the infamous Chernobyl power plant in present-day Ukraine left miles of land in radioactive ruins. Residents living in areas most contaminated by the disaster were evacuated and relocated by government order, and a no-man’s land of our own making was left to its own devices. In the ensuing 25 years, forests, marshes, fields and rivers reclaimed the land, reversing the effects of hundreds of years of human development. And surprisingly, this exclusion zone, or “dead zone,” has become a kind of post-nuclear Eden, populated by beaver and bison, horses and birds, fish and falcons – and ruled by wolves.<br />
<br />
Access to the zone is now permitted, at least on a limited basis, and scientists are monitoring the surviving wildlife in the area, trying to learn how the various species are coping with the invisible blight of radiation. As the top predators in this new wilderness, wolves best reflect the condition of the entire ecosystem because if the wolves are doing well, the populations of their prey must also be doing well. Accordingly, a key long-term study of the wolves has been initiated to determine their health, their range, and their numbers.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/wildlife_in_chernobyl_debate_over_mutations_and_populations_of_plants_and.html Do Animals in Chernobyl’s Fallout Zone Glow?] Mary Mycio; Slate; ; Jan 2013? (from URL)<br />
: The scientific debate about Europe’s unlikeliest wildlife sanctuary. With discussion of Moller and Mousseau's claims<br />
<br />
[https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/chernobyl-is-now-a-hugely-important-wildlife-refuge Chernobyl is now a hugely important wildlife refuge] Germán Orizaola; Cosmos Magazine; 11 May 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
In March 2019, most of the main research groups working with Chernobyl wildlife met in Portsmouth, England. About 30 researchers from the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Belgium, Norway, Spain and Ukraine presented the latest results of our work. These studies included work on big mammals, nesting birds, amphibians, fish, bumblebees, earthworms, bacteria and leaf litter decomposition.<br />
<br />
These studies showed that at present the area hosts great biodiversity. In addition, they confirmed the general lack of big negative effects of current radiation levels on the animal and plant populations living in Chernobyl. All the studied groups maintain stable and viable populations inside the exclusion zone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/05/dogs-chernobyl-abandoned-pets-stray-exclusion-zone Meet the dogs of Chernobyl – the abandoned pets that formed their own canine community] Julie McDowall; The Guardian; 5 Feb 2018<br />
{{Quote|Hundreds of stray dogs have learned to survive in the woods around the exclusion zone – mainly descendants of those left behind after the nuclear disaster, when residents were banned from taking their beloved pets to safety}}<br />
<br />
==== Moller & Mousseau ====<br />
<br />
[http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1616/1443 Birds prefer to breed in sites with low radioactivity in Chernobyl] A.P Møller, T.A Mousseau; Proceedings of the Royal Society / Biological Sciences; 7 Jun 2007<br />
{{Quote|Low-level radioactive contamination may affect choice of breeding site and life-history decisions if (i) radioactivity directly affects body condition or (ii) it affects resource abundance that then secondarily influences reproductive decisions. We tested the effects of radioactive contamination on nest-site choice and reproduction in a community of hole nesting birds by putting up nest boxes in areas differing in levels of background radiation. Great tit Parus major and pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca significantly avoided nest boxes in heavily contaminated areas, with a stronger effect in flycatchers than in tits. These preferences could not be attributed to variation in habitat quality or resource abundance, as determined by analyses of habitat use and the relationship between radiation and life-history characters. Likewise, none of these effects could be attributed to individuals of a specific age breeding in the most contaminated areas. Laying date and clutch size were not significantly related to dose rate in either species. Hatching success was depressed by elevated radioactive contamination, interacting with habitat in the great tit and with laying date in the pied flycatcher. Interspecific differences in effects of radiation on nest-site choice suggest that species respond in a species-specific manner to radiation, perhaps related to differences in migratory habits. We suggest that individual body condition rather than secondary effects of radiation on resource abundance account for the effects on nest box use and hatching success.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11473-chernobyl-based-birds-avoid-radioactive-nests/ Chernobyl-based birds avoid radioactive nests] Catherine Brahic; New Scientist; 28 Mar 2007<br />
<br />
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6946210.stm Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven'] Mark Kinver, Science and nature reporter; BBC; 14 Aug 2007<br />
{{quote|The idea that the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has created a wildlife haven is not scientifically justified, a study says.}}<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.01009.x/full Condition, reproduction and survival of barn swallows from Chernobyl] A. P. MØLLER, T. A. MOUSSEAU, G. MILINEVSKY, A. PEKLO, E. PYSANETS, T. SZÉP; Journal of Animal Ecology; 17 Oct 2005<br />
<br />
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl.html Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving] Kate Ravilious; National Geographic; 26 Apr 2006<br />
{{quote|<br />
But while wildlife seems to be proliferating in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, not everyone is convinced that these plants and animals are healthy.<br />
<br />
Moller and Mousseau have shown that certain species in the area have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities than normal. <br />
<br />
"We find an elevated frequency of partial albinism in barn swallows, meaning they have tufts of white feathers," Mousseau said.<br />
<br />
Late last year Moller and Mousseau published a paper in the Journal of Animal Ecology showing that reproductive rates and annual survival rates are much lower in the Chernobyl birds than in control populations.<br />
<br />
"In Italy around 40 percent of the barn swallows return each year, whereas the annual survival rate is 15 percent or less for Chernobyl," Mousseau said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949314.stm Chernobyl 'shows insect decline'] Victoria Gill, Science reporter; BBC News; 18 Mar 2009<br />
{{quote|According to researchers working in the exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl, there is a "strong signal of decline associated with the contamination". The team found that bumblebees, butterflies, grasshoppers, dragonflies and spiders were affected. They report their findings in the journal Biology Letters. Professor Timothy Mousseau from the University of South Carolina, US, and Dr Anders Moller from the University of Paris-Sud worked together on the project. The two researchers previously published findings that low-level radiation in the area has a negative impact on bird populations.}}<br />
<br />
[https://theconversation.com/at-chernobyl-and-fukushima-radioactivity-has-seriously-harmed-wildlife-57030 At Chernobyl and Fukushima, radioactivity has seriously harmed wildlife] Timothy A. Mousseau; The Conversation; 25 Apr 2016<br />
{{Quote|in the past decade population biologists have made considerable progress in documenting how radioactivity affects plants, animals and microbes. My colleagues and I have analyzed these impacts at Chernobyl, Fukushima and naturally radioactive regions of the planet. Our studies provide new fundamental insights about consequences of chronic, multigenerational exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation. Most importantly, we have found that individual organisms are injured by radiation in a variety of ways. The cumulative effects of these injuries result in lower population sizes and reduced biodiversity in high-radiation areas.}}<br />
<br />
[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/scientific-meltdown-at-chernobyl-2009-03-24/ Scientific meltdown at Chernobyl?] Brendan Borrell, Scientific American blog; 24 Mar 2009<br />
{{Quote|Twenty years after the Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine, radiation is still hammering the region's insect, spider, and bird populations. At least that's what Reuters and the BBC reported last week based on a paper published in the journal Biology Letters by ecologists Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina and Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud. For the past 10 years, the duo has been running transects through the region counting wildlife and measuring radiation levels with dosimeters. "We wanted to ask the question: Are there more or fewer animals in the contaminated areas," Moller told Reuters. "Clearly there were fewer." But at least one scientist formerly associated with the team is questioning the new research. Sergey Gaschak, a researcher at the Chernobyl Center in Ukraine, told the BBC that he drew "opposite conclusions" from the same data the group collected on birds. This might seem like little more than blunt criticism, but I knew that Møller's research ethics had previously been called into question.}}<br />
<br />
[https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2018/03/11/not-thriving-but-failing/ Not thriving, but failing] Linda Pentz Gunter; Beyond Nuclear International; 11 Mar 2018<br />
{{Quote|<br />
It started with wolves. The packs around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which exploded on April 26, 1986, were thriving, said reports. Benefitting from the absence of human predators, and seemingly unaffected by the high radiation levels that still persist in the area, the wolves, they claimed, were doing better than ever.<br />
<br />
Appearances, however, can be deceptive. Abundant does not necessarily mean healthy. And that is exactly what evolutionary biologist, Dr. Timothy Mousseau and his team began to find out as, over the years, they traveled to and researched in and around the Chernobyl disaster site in the Ukraine. Then, when a similar nuclear disaster hit in Japan — with the triple explosions and meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi on March 11, 2011 — Mousseau’s team added that region to its research itinerary.<br />
<br />
Mousseau has now spent more than 17 years looking at the effects on wildlife and the ecosystem of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. He and his colleagues have also spent the last half dozen years studying how non-human biota is faring in the wake of Fukushima. Ninety articles later, they are able to conclude definitively that animals and plants around Chernobyl and Fukushima are very far indeed from flourishing.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Commentary & Criticism =====<br />
[http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is arguably a nature reserve] Colin Barras; BBC; 22 April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Anders Møller at University of Paris-Sud and Timothy Mousseau at the University of South Carolina in Columbia have spent 15 years exploring the impact of wildlife in the area. They have reached a very different set of conclusions.<br />
<br />
"In almost all cases, there is a clear signal of the negative effects of radiation on wild populations," says Mousseau. "Even the cuckoo's call is affected."<br />
<br />
For instance, in 2009 Møller and Mousseau performed their own mammal track count in the exclusion zone – albeit on a much smaller scale than the study Smith and his colleagues undertook. The results, published in 2013, suggested that track abundance is low where radiation levels are high.<br />
<br />
Another study the pair published in 2009 suggested that insects and spiders are less abundant in areas of the exclusion zone where radiation levels are high.<br />
<br />
The study suggested there was an impact on insect abundance even in areas of the exclusion zone where radiation levels are now extremely low.<br />
<br />
"Based on Chernobyl studies, not just our own, most of the rigorous scientific reports indicate that there are measurable genetic consequences of exposure to low-dose-rate radiation," says Mousseau. Those consequences come either in the form of damage to chromosomes or elevated mutation rates.<br />
<br />
"They're publishing evidence of effects at radiation levels within the range of UK background radiation levels," says Wood.<br />
<br />
How is it possible for radiation levels far below those considered harmful to have a significant impact on animal health?<br />
<br />
Møller and Mousseau argue that the studies used to establish safe levels of radiation are largely performed under laboratory conditions. Out in the real world, animals face a multitude of ecological pressures that are not replicated in those lab studies. In natural settings, animals might be weaker and consequently more vulnerable to the effects of low-level radiation.<br />
<br />
However, Møller and Mousseau are virtually alone in their views. Most of the other researchers who have spent time working at Chernobyl take issue with their findings.<br />
<br />
"I very much question some of the dose rates where effects are being claimed on the insects," says Smith. "We did some studies on aquatic invertebrates. We didn't find any of these effects even in the most contaminated lakes."<br />
<br />
It is not just Møller and Mousseau's findings that are questioned. Their research methods have also come in for criticism. It does not help that, in 2002, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled that Møller had fabricated the data for an unrelated study, a claim that he has always denied.<br />
<br />
One of their latest studies claims that bank voles in the exclusion zone have unusually high numbers of cataracts, and that this is linked to radiation levels. It was published in January 2016.<br />
<br />
Smith, Beresford, Wood and several of their colleagues posted a lengthy comment beneath the online version of the paper. They highlight what they claim are a multitude of problems and flaws with the science. In particular, they argue that freezing animals for later study can inadvertently cloud their eyes in a way that could give the false impression that they had cataracts.<br />
<br />
However, Møller strongly rejects these criticisms of his research. "There is no effect of freezing, neither has such an effect ever been shown," he says.<br />
<br />
It is also fair to say that Møller and Mousseau are not quite alone in reporting damaging effects from very low-level radiation exposure. A study by a Japanese research team published in 2012 looked at the biological impact of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. It concluded there were effects on the pale grass blue butterfly even at low-dose exposures.<br />
<br />
In response Beresford, with David Copplestone at the University of Stirling, UK, published an article to highlight what they say are basic errors and misunderstandings about how such studies should be performed.<br />
<br />
This ongoing controversy means that, on the 30th anniversary of Chernobyl, there are two views on its legacy, and they are poles apart.<br />
<br />
Either the evidence from the exclusion zone shows that ecosystems are far more robust to the fallout from nuclear disasters than we thought, or they are more vulnerable than anyone imagined possible. There does not seem to be a way to explain all the results from both sides of the debate, so one side or the other must simply be wrong.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X16300261 Thirty years after the Chernobyl accident: What lessons have we learnt?] N.A.Beresford, S.Fesenko, A.Konoplev, L.Skuterud, J.T.Smith, G.Voigt; Journal of Environmental Radioactivity; June 2016<br />
: A review of 30 years of radioecological studies following the 1986 Chernobyl accident.<br />
: Key contributions to radioecology from post-Chernobyl research are discussed.<br />
<br />
=== Wildfires ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26933-rise-in-wildfires-may-resurrect-chernobyls-radiation/ Rise in wildfires may resurrect Chernobyl’s radiation] New Scientist; 9 Feb 2015<br />
: Nikolaos Evangeliou at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research and colleagues have analysed the impact of forest fires in the region, and calculated their future frequency and intensity. To do so they fed satellite images of real fires in 2002, 2008 and 2010, and measurements of radioactive caesium-137 deposited on the area, to models of air movements and fires. They estimate that of the 85 petabecquerels of radioactive caesium released by the Chernobyl accident, between 2 and 8 PBq still lurk in the upper layer of soil in the exclusion zone. In another ecosystem this might gradually fall with erosion or the removal of vegetation. But in these abandoned forests, says Evangeliou, “trees pick up the radioactive ions, then dead leaves return it to the soil”. The team calculates that the three fires released from 2 to 8 per cent of the caesium, some 0.5 PBq, in smoke. This was distributed over eastern Europe, and detected as far south as Turkey and as far west as Italy and Scandinavia. “The simulation probably underestimates the potential risks,” says Ian Fairlie, former head of the UK government’s radiation risk committee, who has studied the health impacts of Chernobyl. That’s because the estimate depends on the half-life the team assumed for Cs-137, he says, and some investigators believe it is longer. The team’s calculated release would have given people in the nearby Ukrainian capital, Kiev, an average dose of 10 microsieverts of radiation – 1 per cent of the permitted yearly dose. “This is very small,” says Tim Mousseau of the University of South Carolina at Columbia, a co-author of the study. “But these fires serve as a warning of where these contaminants can go. Should there be a larger fire, quite a bit more could end up on populated areas.”<br />
<br />
== Re-occupation of exclusion zone ==<br />
<br />
[https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/04/14/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ “What About Radioactive Wastelands?” A Look at Chernobyl’s Effects on Nature] Iida Ruishalme; Thoughtscapism; 14 Apr 2019<br />
: But is the Zone uninhabitable for people?<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/9646437/The-women-living-in-Chernobyls-toxic-wasteland.html The women living in Chernobyl's toxic wasteland]<br />
Holly Morris; Daily Telegraph; 8 Nov 2012<br />
: Decades after Chernobyl's nuclear disaster, despite the severely contaminated ground, government objections and the deaths of many fellow 'self-settlers’, a community of determined babushkas remains.<br />
<br />
[http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/photo-gallery/chernobyl-exclusion-zone-resettlers.27110/ Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Resettlers] thegrimfandango; Amateur Photographer; 15 Oct 2013<br />
: After the worst nuclear disaster in history at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, over 200,000 people living within a 30km radius were evacuated to other cities, most never to return. Some, desperately unhappy with their new lives began to break back into the exclusion zone to resettle despite the risks. Although the exclusion zone is still in place and will remain so for many years due to elevated levels of radioactivity, the government eventually legalised a handful of resettlers, all over 70 years old. Ivan and his wife live happily with their cats amongst the radioactive hotspots, a few kilometers from the nuclear power plant.<br />
<br />
[http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/mar/07/photography-guillaume-herbaut-chernobyl-strakholissia Big Picture: Chernobyl Riviera, by Guillaume Herbaut] Hannah Booth; Guardian; 7 Mar 2014<br />
: Each week, the Guardian Weekend magazine's editorial team choose a picture, or set of pictures, that particularly tickle their fancy. This week their choice is Guillaume Herbaut's Chernobyl Riviera<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6oKR4L1hW8 'Life is easy': The self settlers of Chernobyl] YouTube; 26 Apr 2016<br />
: Thirty years after the worst man made catastrophe 'The Chernobyl nuclear disaster' some people to continue to live in the area. They are called the 'Self Settlers' and their life is easier than ever.<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hbqLBp_HI Holly Morris: Why stay in Chernobyl? Because it's home.] Holly Morris / TED; YouTube; 31 Oct 2013<br />
: Chernobyl was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident and, for the past 27 years, the area around the plant has been known as the Exclusion Zone. And yet, a community of about 200 people live there -- almost all of them elderly women. These proud grandmas defied orders to relocate because their connection to their homeland and to their community are "forces that rival even radiation."<br />
<br />
[https://www.fastcompany.com/3020853/stunning-images-of-the-thousands-of-people-who-still-live-near-chernobyl-and-fukushima Stunning Images Of The Thousands Of People Who Still Live Near Chernobyl And Fukushima] Ben Schiller; Fast Company; 31 Oct 2013<br />
: “To the world, Chernobyl and Fukushima seem like dangerous places, but for the people who live there, that danger is simply a fact of life,” says photojournalist Michael Forster Rothbart, who spent two years cataloging the lives of people living in the shadow of nuclear accidents. These images are the result.<br />
<br />
“Most photojournalists distort Chernobyl. They visit briefly, expecting danger and despair, and come away with photos of deformed children and abandoned buildings,” Forster Rothbart says in his new book, Would You Stay? “This sensationalist approach obscures more complex stories about how displaced communities adapt and survive.”<br />
<br />
[http://www.claireabaker.co.uk/the-self-settlers-of-chernobyl/ THE SELF SETTLERS OF CHERNOBYL] Claire Baker; blog; 21 Jun 2017<br />
<br />
[https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/jpa853/what-life-looks-like-for-people-living-in-chernobyls-nuclear-exclusion-zone What Life Looks Like for People Living in Chernobyl's Nuclear Exclusion Zone] Joseph Marczynski; Vice; 16 Feb 2017<br />
: Visiting the "Samosely", the 140 settlers surviving on crops cultivated in contaminated soil.<br />
<br />
[https://www.businessinsider.com/what-daily-life-inside-chernobyls-exclusion-zone-is-really-like-2019-4 Photos show what daily life is really like inside Chernobyl's exclusion zone, one of the most polluted areas in the world] Katie Canales; Business Insider; 26 Apr 2019<br />
: Interesting, but quotes Greenpeace, and has statements like<br />
:: Ingesting large quantities of radiation puts residents at risk of serious health issues, like thyroid cancer.<br />
: and<br />
:: Victoria Vetrova told the AP in 2016 that her 8-year-old son has an enlarged thyroid, which is a condition that has been linked to radioactive exposure.<br />
<br />
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/moving_to_Chernobyl The people who moved to Chernobyl] Zhanna Bezpiatchuk; BBC; <br />
: The Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 left a ring of ghost villages as residents fled, fearing radiation poisoning. <br />
<br />
: But now people are choosing to live in the crumbling houses on the edge of the exclusion zone.<br />
<br />
== Media & Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
[http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9e0d2b5aacdacc8f6d679bba2&id=fa0b6777a2&e=45743fde61 No Nukes News] 26 Apr 2016<br />
: ''Collection of claims and anecdotes about Chernobyl, and other issues''<br />
<br />
[https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/whats-really-going-on-at-fukushima/ What’s Really Going on at Fukushima?] ROBERT HUNZIKER; Counterpunch; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: ''Also includes Helen Caldicott-derived claims about Chernobyl''<br />
<br />
''See also [[A manual for survival -- Kate Brown]]''<br />
<br />
=== 2009 HBO mini-series ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.nei.org/news/2019/viewers-guide-to-hbo-miniseries-chernobyl A Viewer's Guide to HBO's Chernobyl Miniseries] MATT WALD; Nuclear Energy Institute; 1 May 2019<br />
: HBO, known for outstanding drama, will begin a five-part miniseries called Chernobyl on May 6, based on the 1986 nuclear accident in the Soviet Union. Viewers might see the Hollywood treatment and wonder what the relevance is outside the USSR.<br />
<br />
: The short answer is: not much.<br />
<br />
: In the spring of 1986, a steam explosion in a Soviet reactor, followed by an intense fire, released a plume of radioactive particles. Moscow denied everything and denounced the reports of high radiation readings as part of “a poisoned cloud of anti-Sovietism.” The explosion and fire, the heroic efforts to limit the damage, the inept government response, and anything with “nuclear” in the title all make for good television.<br />
<br />
: We can learn something from the event, one of the biggest industrial tragedies of the 1980s. However, much of the underlying circumstances were particular to the Chernobyl reactor and the Soviet government’s response.<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/04/25/chernobyl-truth-drowns-in-dramatized-movie/ Chernobyl Truth Drowns In Dramatized Movie] James Conca; Forbes; 25 Apr 2019<br />
: April 26, 2019 marks the 33rd anniversary of the worst commercial nuclear accident in the world, and the only one to kill anyone with radioactivity – the Soviet Union’s RBMK reactor meltdown at the Chernobyl power plant in 1986.<br />
<br />
: A few weeks from now, HBO will show a new miniseries, Chernobyl, that will dramatize the event. From the trailer, it might actually describe what happened inside the power plant, and nearby surroundings, pretty well. And it will certainly capture the fear very well.<br />
<br />
: But it will fail yet again to describe what happened outside and far away, sensationalizing and exaggerating the effects, and reinforcing the myth that many thousands of people died from radiation in Ukraine, Belarus and Europe.<br />
<br />
: It will not reveal that only the fear of radiation killed anyone outside the immediate area. All health and epidemiological studies ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899336/ 1], [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674166/ 2], [https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences 3], [https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/WHO%20Report%20on%20Chernobyl%20Health%20Effects%20July%2006.pdf 4], [https://www.sfrp.asso.fr/medias/sfrp/documents/5-Balonov.pdf 5], [http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html 6], [http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2008/UNSCEAR_2008_Annex-D-CORR.pdf 7], [http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/info/Safety_and_Security/Safety_of_Plants/jaworowski_chernobyl.pdf 8]) have shown that the long-term mental health effects were the only significant public health consequence of the accident outside of the vicinity of Chernobyl.<br />
<br />
: But the [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/mental-health-and-disasters/longterm-mental-health-impacts-of-the-chernobyl-accident/DF45589C5108C31E1105E5C5A6F8F34F fear did cause] about 50,000 deaths of Chernobyl refugees from alcoholism and depression in the decades following, along with over 100,000 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia unnecessary abortions] in the few years following the accident.<br />
<br />
: In 2015, the National Institutes of Health declared that, “In spite of the best efforts of statisticians and epidemiologists, the claimed thousands of Chernobyl-induced cancers and mutations have yet to manifest themselves.”<br />
<br />
: And we have been looking really, really hard for 33 years.<br />
<br />
: Surprisingly, there were three other nuclear reactors at the same Chernobyl plant that kept running for many years afterwards. 3,000 people went to work at the Chernobyl plant every day and had no problem with health or radiation effects.<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/ The Reason They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Is Because They Kill So Few People] Michael Shellenberger; Forbes; 9 May 2019<br />
: In the end, HBO’s “Chernobyl” suggests that whatever the intentions of its producers, it is difficult to make an exciting movie about nuclear disasters without leading viewers to believe that they were much worse than they actually were.<br />
<br />
: Anti-nuclear ideology aside, the entertainment industry has to fictionalize nuclear disasters for the simple reason that they kill so few people.<br />
<br />
[https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-hbos-chernobyl-got-right-and-what-it-got-terribly-wrong What HBO’s “Chernobyl” Got Right, and What It Got Terribly Wrong] Masha Gessen; The New Yorker; 4 Jun 2019<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/ Why HBO's "Chernobyl" Gets Nuclear So Wrong] Michael Shellenberger; Forbes; 6 Jun 2019<br />
: Having now watched all five episodes of “Chernobyl,” and seen the public’s reaction to it, I think it’s obvious that the mini-series terrified millions of people about the technology.<br />
<br />
[https://przekroj.pl/en/culture/comrade-batman-victor-martinovich Comrade Batman] Victor Martinovich; PrzeKroj; 14 Jun 2019<br />
: How HBO’s “Chernobyl” Ignores the Nuances of Soviet Language<br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqmOfbe1YbA Chernobyl | Based on a True Story] The Cynical Historian; YouTube; 20 Jun 2019<br />
: Chernobyl seemed sooo good. Plus HBO has a stellar record. This was engrossing procedural drama, my kind of faire. This show definitely propounds some harmful myths.</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5516Resources2022-08-31T14:07:21Z<p>Sisussman: /* animal v plant */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows Whitest-ever paint could help cool heating Earth, study shows] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 15 April 2022<br />
{{q|New paint reflects 98% of sunlight as well as radiating infrared heat into space, reducing need for air conditioning}}<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-and-secure-energy-transitions/executive-summary A new dawn for nuclear energy?] IEA Executive Summary; <br />
{{q|Nuclear energy can help make the energy sector's journey away from unabated fossil fuels faster and more secure. Amid today’s global energy crisis, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels has become the top energy security priority. No less important is the climate crisis: reaching net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by mid-century requires a rapid and complete decarbonisation of electricity generation and heat production. Nuclear energy, with its 413 gigawatts (GW) of capacity operating in 32 countries, contributes to both goals by avoiding 1.5 gigatonnes (Gt) of global emissions and 180 billion cubic metres (bcm) of global gas demand a year. While wind and solar PV are expected to lead the push to replace fossil fuels, they need to be complemented by dispatchable resources. As today’s second largest source of low emissions power after hydropower, and with its dispatchability and growth potential, nuclear – in countries where it is accepted – can help ensure secure, diverse low emissions electricity systems.}}<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
==== small reactors ====<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/why-are-smaller-reactors-attracting-so-much-interest/ Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest?] Rod Adams; Atomic Insights; 4 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
* [https://www.thomas-thor.com/missing-the-personal-touch/ Missing the personal touch] Jeremy Gordon; 14 March 2022<br />
{{q|Social media has revolutionised communication, but nuclear power hasn’t yet plucked up the courage to use it properly. The nuclear industry is missing out on chances to build trust and awareness through personal engagement, but it has to trust itself to take this opportunity.}}<br />
<br />
==== James Lovelock ====<br />
* [http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution/ NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY GREEN SOLUTION] James Lovelock; personal website; from The Independent, 24 May 2004.<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
* [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
=== others ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20191230081101/https://www.iync.org/iync-presents-the-report-understanding-the-anti-nuclear-environmental-movement/ Understanding the Anti-nuclear Environmental Movement] Alexandro Gladtsin; International Youth Nuclear Congress; 15/02/2016<br />
{{q|The report aims to outline the main arguments against nuclear power as used by anti-nuclear activist organisations and to present them to professionals in the nuclear industry. Using this as a basis, nuclear professionals should be able to understand and, further down the road, learn to communicate with anti-nuclear activists.}}<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
=== data ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
=== animal v plant ===<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 7 July 2022<br />
{{q|Investments in plant-based alternatives to meat lead to far greater cuts in climate-heating emissions than other green investments, according to one of the world’s biggest consultancy firms.<br />
<br />
The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that, for each dollar, investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives resulted in three times more greenhouse gas reductions compared with investment in green cement technology, seven times more than green buildings and 11 times more than zero-emission cars.}}<br />
<br />
==== precision fermentation milk ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/not-like-udder-milk-synthetic-dairy-milk-made-without-cows-may-be-coming-to-a-supermarket-near-you-189046 Not like udder milk: ‘synthetic’ dairy milk made without cows may be coming to a supermarket near you] Milena Bojovic; The Conversation; 29 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
* [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/crispr-engineered-rice-enhances-natural-production-of-fertilizer/ CRISPR-Engineered Rice Enhances the Natural Production of Fertilizer] Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News; 9 Aug 2022<br />
{{q|Researchers have used CRISPR to engineer rice that encourages soil bacteria to fix nitrogen, which is required for their growth. <br />
<br />
Their work was published in Plant Biotechnology ([https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.13894 “Genetic modification of flavone biosynthesis in rice enhances biofilm formation of soil diazotrophic bacteria and biological nitrogen fixation”]).}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5515Resources2022-08-31T10:41:34Z<p>Sisussman: /* IEA */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows Whitest-ever paint could help cool heating Earth, study shows] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 15 April 2022<br />
{{q|New paint reflects 98% of sunlight as well as radiating infrared heat into space, reducing need for air conditioning}}<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-and-secure-energy-transitions/executive-summary A new dawn for nuclear energy?] IEA Executive Summary; <br />
{{q|Nuclear energy can help make the energy sector's journey away from unabated fossil fuels faster and more secure. Amid today’s global energy crisis, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels has become the top energy security priority. No less important is the climate crisis: reaching net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by mid-century requires a rapid and complete decarbonisation of electricity generation and heat production. Nuclear energy, with its 413 gigawatts (GW) of capacity operating in 32 countries, contributes to both goals by avoiding 1.5 gigatonnes (Gt) of global emissions and 180 billion cubic metres (bcm) of global gas demand a year. While wind and solar PV are expected to lead the push to replace fossil fuels, they need to be complemented by dispatchable resources. As today’s second largest source of low emissions power after hydropower, and with its dispatchability and growth potential, nuclear – in countries where it is accepted – can help ensure secure, diverse low emissions electricity systems.}}<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
==== small reactors ====<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/why-are-smaller-reactors-attracting-so-much-interest/ Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest?] Rod Adams; Atomic Insights; 4 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
* [https://www.thomas-thor.com/missing-the-personal-touch/ Missing the personal touch] Jeremy Gordon; 14 March 2022<br />
{{q|Social media has revolutionised communication, but nuclear power hasn’t yet plucked up the courage to use it properly. The nuclear industry is missing out on chances to build trust and awareness through personal engagement, but it has to trust itself to take this opportunity.}}<br />
<br />
==== James Lovelock ====<br />
* [http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution/ NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY GREEN SOLUTION] James Lovelock; personal website; from The Independent, 24 May 2004.<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
* [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
=== others ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20191230081101/https://www.iync.org/iync-presents-the-report-understanding-the-anti-nuclear-environmental-movement/ Understanding the Anti-nuclear Environmental Movement] Alexandro Gladtsin; International Youth Nuclear Congress; 15/02/2016<br />
{{q|The report aims to outline the main arguments against nuclear power as used by anti-nuclear activist organisations and to present them to professionals in the nuclear industry. Using this as a basis, nuclear professionals should be able to understand and, further down the road, learn to communicate with anti-nuclear activists.}}<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
=== data ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
=== animal v plant ===<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 7 July 2022<br />
{{q|Investments in plant-based alternatives to meat lead to far greater cuts in climate-heating emissions than other green investments, according to one of the world’s biggest consultancy firms.<br />
<br />
The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that, for each dollar, investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives resulted in three times more greenhouse gas reductions compared with investment in green cement technology, seven times more than green buildings and 11 times more than zero-emission cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
* [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/crispr-engineered-rice-enhances-natural-production-of-fertilizer/ CRISPR-Engineered Rice Enhances the Natural Production of Fertilizer] Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News; 9 Aug 2022<br />
{{q|Researchers have used CRISPR to engineer rice that encourages soil bacteria to fix nitrogen, which is required for their growth. <br />
<br />
Their work was published in Plant Biotechnology ([https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.13894 “Genetic modification of flavone biosynthesis in rice enhances biofilm formation of soil diazotrophic bacteria and biological nitrogen fixation”]).}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5514Resources2022-08-31T10:36:47Z<p>Sisussman: /* advocacy */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows Whitest-ever paint could help cool heating Earth, study shows] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 15 April 2022<br />
{{q|New paint reflects 98% of sunlight as well as radiating infrared heat into space, reducing need for air conditioning}}<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
==== small reactors ====<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/why-are-smaller-reactors-attracting-so-much-interest/ Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest?] Rod Adams; Atomic Insights; 4 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
* [https://www.thomas-thor.com/missing-the-personal-touch/ Missing the personal touch] Jeremy Gordon; 14 March 2022<br />
{{q|Social media has revolutionised communication, but nuclear power hasn’t yet plucked up the courage to use it properly. The nuclear industry is missing out on chances to build trust and awareness through personal engagement, but it has to trust itself to take this opportunity.}}<br />
<br />
==== James Lovelock ====<br />
* [http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution/ NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY GREEN SOLUTION] James Lovelock; personal website; from The Independent, 24 May 2004.<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
* [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
=== others ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20191230081101/https://www.iync.org/iync-presents-the-report-understanding-the-anti-nuclear-environmental-movement/ Understanding the Anti-nuclear Environmental Movement] Alexandro Gladtsin; International Youth Nuclear Congress; 15/02/2016<br />
{{q|The report aims to outline the main arguments against nuclear power as used by anti-nuclear activist organisations and to present them to professionals in the nuclear industry. Using this as a basis, nuclear professionals should be able to understand and, further down the road, learn to communicate with anti-nuclear activists.}}<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
=== data ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
=== animal v plant ===<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 7 July 2022<br />
{{q|Investments in plant-based alternatives to meat lead to far greater cuts in climate-heating emissions than other green investments, according to one of the world’s biggest consultancy firms.<br />
<br />
The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that, for each dollar, investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives resulted in three times more greenhouse gas reductions compared with investment in green cement technology, seven times more than green buildings and 11 times more than zero-emission cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
* [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/crispr-engineered-rice-enhances-natural-production-of-fertilizer/ CRISPR-Engineered Rice Enhances the Natural Production of Fertilizer] Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News; 9 Aug 2022<br />
{{q|Researchers have used CRISPR to engineer rice that encourages soil bacteria to fix nitrogen, which is required for their growth. <br />
<br />
Their work was published in Plant Biotechnology ([https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.13894 “Genetic modification of flavone biosynthesis in rice enhances biofilm formation of soil diazotrophic bacteria and biological nitrogen fixation”]).}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5513Resources2022-08-31T10:34:57Z<p>Sisussman: /* advocacy */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows Whitest-ever paint could help cool heating Earth, study shows] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 15 April 2022<br />
{{q|New paint reflects 98% of sunlight as well as radiating infrared heat into space, reducing need for air conditioning}}<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
==== small reactors ====<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/why-are-smaller-reactors-attracting-so-much-interest/ Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest?] Rod Adams; Atomic Insights; 4 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
==== James Lovelock ====<br />
* [http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution/ NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY GREEN SOLUTION] James Lovelock; personal website; from The Independent, 24 May 2004.<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
* [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
=== others ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20191230081101/https://www.iync.org/iync-presents-the-report-understanding-the-anti-nuclear-environmental-movement/ Understanding the Anti-nuclear Environmental Movement] Alexandro Gladtsin; International Youth Nuclear Congress; 15/02/2016<br />
{{q|The report aims to outline the main arguments against nuclear power as used by anti-nuclear activist organisations and to present them to professionals in the nuclear industry. Using this as a basis, nuclear professionals should be able to understand and, further down the road, learn to communicate with anti-nuclear activists.}}<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
=== data ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
=== animal v plant ===<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 7 July 2022<br />
{{q|Investments in plant-based alternatives to meat lead to far greater cuts in climate-heating emissions than other green investments, according to one of the world’s biggest consultancy firms.<br />
<br />
The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that, for each dollar, investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives resulted in three times more greenhouse gas reductions compared with investment in green cement technology, seven times more than green buildings and 11 times more than zero-emission cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
* [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/crispr-engineered-rice-enhances-natural-production-of-fertilizer/ CRISPR-Engineered Rice Enhances the Natural Production of Fertilizer] Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News; 9 Aug 2022<br />
{{q|Researchers have used CRISPR to engineer rice that encourages soil bacteria to fix nitrogen, which is required for their growth. <br />
<br />
Their work was published in Plant Biotechnology ([https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.13894 “Genetic modification of flavone biosynthesis in rice enhances biofilm formation of soil diazotrophic bacteria and biological nitrogen fixation”]).}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5512Resources2022-08-31T10:32:04Z<p>Sisussman: /* anti-nuclear */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows Whitest-ever paint could help cool heating Earth, study shows] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 15 April 2022<br />
{{q|New paint reflects 98% of sunlight as well as radiating infrared heat into space, reducing need for air conditioning}}<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
==== small reactors ====<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/why-are-smaller-reactors-attracting-so-much-interest/ Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest?] Rod Adams; Atomic Insights; 4 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
* [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
=== others ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20191230081101/https://www.iync.org/iync-presents-the-report-understanding-the-anti-nuclear-environmental-movement/ Understanding the Anti-nuclear Environmental Movement] Alexandro Gladtsin; International Youth Nuclear Congress; 15/02/2016<br />
{{q|The report aims to outline the main arguments against nuclear power as used by anti-nuclear activist organisations and to present them to professionals in the nuclear industry. Using this as a basis, nuclear professionals should be able to understand and, further down the road, learn to communicate with anti-nuclear activists.}}<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
=== data ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
=== animal v plant ===<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 7 July 2022<br />
{{q|Investments in plant-based alternatives to meat lead to far greater cuts in climate-heating emissions than other green investments, according to one of the world’s biggest consultancy firms.<br />
<br />
The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that, for each dollar, investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives resulted in three times more greenhouse gas reductions compared with investment in green cement technology, seven times more than green buildings and 11 times more than zero-emission cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
* [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/crispr-engineered-rice-enhances-natural-production-of-fertilizer/ CRISPR-Engineered Rice Enhances the Natural Production of Fertilizer] Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News; 9 Aug 2022<br />
{{q|Researchers have used CRISPR to engineer rice that encourages soil bacteria to fix nitrogen, which is required for their growth. <br />
<br />
Their work was published in Plant Biotechnology ([https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.13894 “Genetic modification of flavone biosynthesis in rice enhances biofilm formation of soil diazotrophic bacteria and biological nitrogen fixation”]).}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5511Resources2022-08-29T15:01:49Z<p>Sisussman: /* reactor technology */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows Whitest-ever paint could help cool heating Earth, study shows] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 15 April 2022<br />
{{q|New paint reflects 98% of sunlight as well as radiating infrared heat into space, reducing need for air conditioning}}<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
==== small reactors ====<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/why-are-smaller-reactors-attracting-so-much-interest/ Why are smaller reactors attracting so much interest?] Rod Adams; Atomic Insights; 4 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
=== data ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
=== animal v plant ===<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 7 July 2022<br />
{{q|Investments in plant-based alternatives to meat lead to far greater cuts in climate-heating emissions than other green investments, according to one of the world’s biggest consultancy firms.<br />
<br />
The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that, for each dollar, investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives resulted in three times more greenhouse gas reductions compared with investment in green cement technology, seven times more than green buildings and 11 times more than zero-emission cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
* [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/crispr-engineered-rice-enhances-natural-production-of-fertilizer/ CRISPR-Engineered Rice Enhances the Natural Production of Fertilizer] Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News; 9 Aug 2022<br />
{{q|Researchers have used CRISPR to engineer rice that encourages soil bacteria to fix nitrogen, which is required for their growth. <br />
<br />
Their work was published in Plant Biotechnology ([https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.13894 “Genetic modification of flavone biosynthesis in rice enhances biofilm formation of soil diazotrophic bacteria and biological nitrogen fixation”]).}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5510Resources2022-08-29T14:45:56Z<p>Sisussman: /* Passive Radiative Cooling */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/15/whitest-ever-paint-could-help-cool-heating-earth-study-shows Whitest-ever paint could help cool heating Earth, study shows] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 15 April 2022<br />
{{q|New paint reflects 98% of sunlight as well as radiating infrared heat into space, reducing need for air conditioning}}<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
=== data ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
=== animal v plant ===<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 7 July 2022<br />
{{q|Investments in plant-based alternatives to meat lead to far greater cuts in climate-heating emissions than other green investments, according to one of the world’s biggest consultancy firms.<br />
<br />
The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that, for each dollar, investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives resulted in three times more greenhouse gas reductions compared with investment in green cement technology, seven times more than green buildings and 11 times more than zero-emission cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
* [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/crispr-engineered-rice-enhances-natural-production-of-fertilizer/ CRISPR-Engineered Rice Enhances the Natural Production of Fertilizer] Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News; 9 Aug 2022<br />
{{q|Researchers have used CRISPR to engineer rice that encourages soil bacteria to fix nitrogen, which is required for their growth. <br />
<br />
Their work was published in Plant Biotechnology ([https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.13894 “Genetic modification of flavone biosynthesis in rice enhances biofilm formation of soil diazotrophic bacteria and biological nitrogen fixation”]).}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5509Resources2022-08-29T14:44:02Z<p>Sisussman: /* biotech / GM */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
=== data ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
=== animal v plant ===<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 7 July 2022<br />
{{q|Investments in plant-based alternatives to meat lead to far greater cuts in climate-heating emissions than other green investments, according to one of the world’s biggest consultancy firms.<br />
<br />
The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that, for each dollar, investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives resulted in three times more greenhouse gas reductions compared with investment in green cement technology, seven times more than green buildings and 11 times more than zero-emission cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
* [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/crispr-engineered-rice-enhances-natural-production-of-fertilizer/ CRISPR-Engineered Rice Enhances the Natural Production of Fertilizer] Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News; 9 Aug 2022<br />
{{q|Researchers have used CRISPR to engineer rice that encourages soil bacteria to fix nitrogen, which is required for their growth. <br />
<br />
Their work was published in Plant Biotechnology ([https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.13894 “Genetic modification of flavone biosynthesis in rice enhances biofilm formation of soil diazotrophic bacteria and biological nitrogen fixation”]).}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5508Resources2022-08-29T14:40:48Z<p>Sisussman: /* food & ag */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
=== data ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
=== animal v plant ===<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; 7 July 2022<br />
{{q|Investments in plant-based alternatives to meat lead to far greater cuts in climate-heating emissions than other green investments, according to one of the world’s biggest consultancy firms.<br />
<br />
The report from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) found that, for each dollar, investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives resulted in three times more greenhouse gas reductions compared with investment in green cement technology, seven times more than green buildings and 11 times more than zero-emission cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5507Resources2022-08-29T14:37:25Z<p>Sisussman: /* cities */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
=== transport ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-streets-drivers-violence-oxford Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them] George Monbiot; The Guardian; 3 Aug 2022<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5506Resources2022-08-29T14:35:45Z<p>Sisussman: /* waste */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste & spent fuel ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions] Mitch Jacoby; Chemical & Engineering News; 30 Mar 2020<br />
{{q|Researchers study and model corrosion in the materials proposed for locking away the hazardous waste}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5505Resources2022-08-29T14:30:42Z<p>Sisussman: /* action */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
=== political interference ===<br />
==== Russia ====<br />
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'] Fiona Harvey; The Guardian; 19 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Site_map&diff=5504Site map2022-08-27T13:24:22Z<p>Sisussman: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{#tree:extensions=["persist"] | minExpandLevel=1 |<br />
* [[:Category:Problems|Problems]] - the physical limits and other challenges to the sustainability of human life on earth<br />
** [[Planetary boundaries]] - nine areas of human effects on Earth system processes within which we must stay within safe zones<br />
*** [[Climate change]]<br />
*** [[Biodiversity]] loss<br />
*** [[Pollution]]<br />
<br />
* [[:Category:Solutions|Solutions]] - how we can solve the problems we face<br />
** [[:Category:Mitigation|Mitigation]] - ways in which we can reduce, stop, or reverse the causes of problems<br />
** [[:Category:Adaptation|Adaptation]] - how we can minimise the effects of problems<br />
<br />
* [[:Category:Energy|Energy]] - the source of almost three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions<br />
** [[What is energy?]] <br />
** how much do we use and for what? <br />
** [[Energy, poverty and development|how is energy consumption related to poverty and development?]]<br />
** [[Future energy plans | how does our energy mix need to change to become sustainable?]]<br />
** [[Renewable energy]]<br />
*** [[Types of renewable energy]] - Solar, Wind, Hydro, Biomass etc<br />
*** [[Solar energy]]<br />
*** [[Wind energy]]<br />
*** [[Hydropower]]<br />
*** [[Wave energy]]<br />
*** [[Tidal energy]]<br />
*** [[Geothermal energy]]<br />
*** [[Biomass]]<br />
<br />
** [[Nuclear energy]]<br />
*** [[What is nuclear energy?]] - what is fission, fusion, and radioactive decay, and what are the different types of fission reactors,<br />
*** [[How safe is nuclear energy?]] - what about Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island?<br />
**** [[Nuclear safety]] - more on safety and accidents<br />
***** [[Fukushima]]<br />
***** [[Chernobyl]]]<br />
***** [[Three Mile Island]]<br />
*** [[Spent nuclear fuel]] and [[Nuclear waste]] - articles about the management and long-term disposal of nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel<br />
*** [[Nuclear proliferation | Proliferation]] - does having nuclear energy make it easier or harder for states to build nuclear weapons?<br />
*** [[Nuclear radiation]] - what is nuclear radiation and how dangerous is it?<br />
**** [[What is nuclear radiation?]] - Alpha particles, Beta particles, Gamma rays and neutrons<br />
**** [[Radiation hormesis]] - the hypothesis that low level radiation enhances health<br />
*** [[Sustainability of nuclear fuels]] - how much Uranium and other fuels do we have?<br />
*** [[Nuclear decommissioning]] - decommissioning nuclear power stations etc<br />
*** [[How fast can we build nuclear?]] - doesn't it take too long to build? How does it compare with the speed of building other clean energy generation?<br />
*** [[Economics of nuclear energy]] - how much does it cost to build nuclear plants, and how much does the power they produce cost?<br />
*** [[Carbon intensity of nuclear energy]] - is nuclear really low carbon? How low?<br />
*** [[Expert assessments of nuclear energy]] - what do the IPCC, IEA etc say about nuclear energy?<br />
*** [[Public perception of nuclear energy]] - a collection of links to pro- and anti-nuclear pieces.<br />
*** [[Nuclear energy by state]] - articles about nuclear energy in various parts of the world.<br />
**** [[Nuclear energy in the UK]]<br />
***** [[Hinkley Point C]] - articles about the EPR being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset<br />
*** Articles about specific reactors:<br />
**** [[EPR]] - the "European Pressurised Reactor" / "Evolutionary Power Reactor" being built at Hinkley Point and elsewhere<br />
**** "[[Hualong One]]" / HP1000 - an evolutionary Chinese design of Pressurised Water Reactor which may be built at Bradwell in Essex<br />
**** [[KEPCO APR1400]] - Korean PWR<br />
*** [[New nuclear reactor technologies]] - various types of reactor being developed or proposed<br />
**** [[Small Modular Reactors]]<br />
**** [[Molten Salt Reactors]]<br />
***** [[Moltex]] - an unusual and promising Molten Salt Reactor being developed by a British start-up company<br />
***** [[Terrestrial Energy]] - a Canadian company developing a small modular reactor for use in remote locations<br />
***** [[Thorcon]] - a company planning to build Thorium-fuelled molten salt reactors in shipyards.<br />
**** [[Fast breeder reactors]] - reactors that can create their own fuel and burn up radioactive waste <br />
**** [[Nuclear fusion]] - some articles about fusion<br />
<br />
** [[CCS | Carbon Capture and Storage]] (CCS)<br />
<br />
** [[Energy storage]]<br />
<br />
* [[:Category:Transport|Transport]] - source of one sixth of global GHG emissions<br />
** [[Electric vehicles]]<br />
** [[HS2]]<br />
<br />
* [[:Category:Land use|Land use]] - almost a fifth of emissions, huge potential for {{CO2}} reduction, and a major factor for biodiversity<br />
** [[Agriculture]]<br />
** [[Cities]]<br />
** [[Rewilding]]<br />
<br />
* [[:Category:Science|Science]] - how we know what's happening and what we can do about it<br />
** [[Science]] - what and why<br />
** [[Epistemic learned helplessness]] - how we can decide on issues which we're not experts on<br />
** [[IPCC]] - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: a body of experts who assess the science on climate change, mitigation, and adaptation.<br />
** [[Doomism]] - Deep Adaptation, Near Term Human Extinction, etc<br />
<br />
* [[:Category:Economics|Economics]] - the financial and other factors driving problems and available for solutions<br />
** [[Economics of energy]] - the prices, and value, of energy<br />
*** [[Levelised cost of energy and cost of intermittency]] - how to value different energy sources<br />
** [[Economics of nuclear energy]]<br />
** [[:Category:Carbon pricing|Carbon pricing]] - imposing costs on {{CO2}} emissions<br />
<br />
* [[:Category:People|People]] - who's who<br />
** [[:Category:David MacKay|David MacKay]]<br />
** [[:Category:MZJ|Mark Z Jacobson]]<br />
** [[Benjamin Sovacool]]<br />
** [[Chris Busby]]<br />
** [[George Monbiot]]<br />
** [[Vandana Shiva]]<br />
<br />
* [[:Category:Action|Action]] - what we need to do, and what we can do, individually and/or collectively, about the problems we face<br />
** [[Legal action on climate change]] - using the law to compel governments and businesses etc to take action on climate change.<br />
** [[Anti-nuclear movement]] - the people and organisations opposed to nuclear energy<br />
** [[Extinction Rebellion]] - the activist movement using non-violent civil disobedience to pressure governments to act on climate change.<br />
** [[School strike]] / Fridays 4 Future / Sunrise movement<br />
** [[Greens, Ecomodernists, and the right]] - political tendencies related to acceptance or otherwise of climate change and solutions.<br />
}}<br />
* [[:Category:Editorial|Editorials]] - opinion pieces and original research</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5503Resources2022-08-22T11:13:43Z<p>Sisussman: /* anti-nuclear */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Greenpeace ===<br />
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/greenpeace-resolute-court-1.4012553 Greenpeace court filing an admission of 'lying,' forest company charges]<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5502Resources2022-08-19T08:36:58Z<p>Sisussman: /* EU */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
[https://twitter.com/letsreplanet/status/1536967482426421248?s=20&t=5uUKafy5yxMTARFBJq_g8g thread] by RePlanet on Twitter; Aug 2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5501Resources2022-08-19T08:35:55Z<p>Sisussman: /* UN */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== EU ===<br />
[https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf JRC Science for policy report: Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)] Joint Research Centre; 2021<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5500Resources2022-08-19T08:31:48Z<p>Sisussman: /* UN */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
[https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region: Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; 2021-2022<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Resources&diff=5499Resources2022-08-19T08:28:55Z<p>Sisussman: /* IEA */</p>
<hr />
<div>== problems ==<br />
<br />
=== climate change ===<br />
* [https://climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere Does "global warming" mean it’s warming everywhere?] climate.gov<br />
<br />
*[https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof] By Julia Rosen; New York Times; April 19, 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8763931/Disturbing-video-shows-Antarctica-emerging-ice-temperatures-rise.html Shocking computer animation shows how Antarctica could emerge from the ice if global warming continues unabated causing the frozen continent to melt and sea levels to rise] Daily Mail; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2021-02-irreversible-sub-systems-prior-climate.html Possible irreversible changes to sub-systems prior to reaching climate change tipping points] by Bob Yirka; Phys.org; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Recently a pair of researchers with the University of Copenhagen published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describing their work looking into the possibility of changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the circumstances that could lead to such changes. In their paper, Johannes Lohmann and Peter Ditlevsen noted that climate models show that irreversible changes to sub-systems such as the AMOC, one of Earth's global sub-systems, can occur prior to a tipping point if changes occur at a fast pace.}}<br />
<br />
==== Carbon cycle ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1131224330241806337?s=21 Animated diagram of the Earth's Carbon Cycle and how it has changed over time] Dr Robert Rohde; Twitter; 24 May 2021<br />
** [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131224330241806337.html ThreadReaderApp]<br />
** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY Youtube]<br />
<br />
==== global GHG emissions ====<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; September 18, 2020<br />
<br />
==== wildfires ====<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 Some say we’ve seen bushfires worse than this before. But they’re ignoring a few key facts] Conversation; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== tipping points ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03263-2 Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate] Paul D. L. Ritchie et al; Nature; 21 Apr 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Palaeorecords suggest that the climate system has tipping points, where small changes in forcing cause substantial and irreversible alteration to Earth system components called tipping elements. As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel burning, human activity could also trigger tipping, and the impacts would be difficult to adapt to. Previous studies report low global warming thresholds above pre-industrial conditions for key tipping elements such as ice-sheet melt. If so, high contemporary rates of warming imply that exceeding these thresholds is almost inevitable, which is widely assumed to mean that we are now committed to suffering these tipping events. Here we show that this assumption may be flawed, especially for slow-onset tipping elements (such as the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) in our rapidly changing climate. Recently developed theory indicates that a threshold may be temporarily exceeded without prompting a change of system state, if the overshoot time is short compared to the effective timescale of the tipping element. To demonstrate this, we consider transparently simple models of tipping elements with prescribed thresholds, driven by global warming trajectories that peak before returning to stabilize at a global warming level of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. These results highlight the importance of accounting for timescales when assessing risks associated with overshooting tipping point thresholds.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://twitter.com/PDLRitchie/status/1384894627602391042 thread] Paul Ritchie; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
*** [https://twitter.com/TEGNicholas/status/1384953854328983555 thread] Tom Nicholas; Twitter; 21 April 2021<br />
<br />
==== sea level rise ====<br />
* [https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/ Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?] Real Climate; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.}}<br />
<br />
=== pollution ===<br />
==== air pollution ====<br />
* [https://www.desmog.co.uk/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-linked-to-global-deaths-study Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Linked to 1 in 5 Deaths Globally, New Study Reveals] By Nick Cunningham; deSmog blog; February 9, 2021<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution is responsible for roughly one in five deaths worldwide, a much higher death toll than previously thought, according to a new study published Tuesday.<br />
<br />
Poor air quality from burning fossil fuels such as coal and diesel was responsible for more than 8 million deaths in 2018, according to research published February 9 in the journal Environmental Research by Harvard University, the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester, and University College London.<br />
<br />
This new research suggests that mortality from fossil fuel air pollution is twice as high as previously thought; an earlier estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2015, the largest and most comprehensive study on the causes of global mortality, pegged the number of deaths from all sources of air pollution at 4.2 million.}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought emissions higher than previously thought] Harvard press release<br />
{{Quote|Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018<br />
<br />
More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.<br />
<br />
Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.}}<br />
*** [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487 Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem] <br />
----<br />
* [https://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/surveys/airsurvey/ Air Survey] Imperial College<br />
{{Quote|The OPAL Air Survey allows participants to find out about the air quality in their local area and across the country, and discover how the natural environment is affected by air pollution. It uses ‘bioindicators’, species whose presence or performance is sensitive to changes in environmental conditions. The OPAL Air Survey contains two activities, using different bioindicators of air pollution.<br />
<br />
'''Activity 1: Lichens on trees'''<br />
<br />
The survey recorded the abundance of nine different types of lichen growing on trees. This provided a bioindicator system for nitrogenous air pollutants, by including lichens that are nitrogen-sensitive (declining where pollution is high), nitrogen-tolerant (increasing where pollution is high) or intermediate (no strong preference).<br />
<br />
'''Activity 2: Tar spot fungus on Sycamore'''<br />
<br />
The tar spot fungus is sensitive to sulphur dioxide (SO2) pollution, and is less common where levels are high. Even though SO2 pollution has reduced over the past 50 years, recent observations suggest that tar spots are still less frequent closer to city centres. Activity 2 tested two hypotheses as to why this might be:<br />
<br />
* Street cleaning in city centres removes fallen leaves, which are a source of the fungus that causes tar spot<br />
* Other types of air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from road traffic, reduce tar spot formation<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== pandemic ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U The Next Pandemic - John Oliver] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/far-uvc-light-could-be-used-against-coronavirus-without-harming-people/ Far-UVC light could be used against coronavirus without harming people] BBC Science Focus; May 2020<br />
<br />
=== population growth/decline ===<br />
* [https://www.ft.com/content/008ea78a-8bc1-4954-b283-700608d3dc6c?shareType=nongift China set to report first population decline since 1949] Sun Yu; FT; 27 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
China is set to report its first population decline since records began in 1949 despite the relaxation of the government’s strict family planning policies, which was meant to reverse the falling birth rate of the world’s most populous country.<br />
<br />
The latest Chinese census, which was completed in December but has yet to be made public, is expected to report the total population of the country at less than 1.4bn, according to people familiar with the research. In 2019, China’s population was reported to have exceeded the 1.4bn mark.<br />
<br />
The people cautioned, however, that the figure was considered very sensitive and would not be released until multiple government departments had reached a consensus on the data and its implications.<br />
<br />
“The census results will have a huge impact on how the Chinese people see their country and how various government departments work,” said Huang Wenzheng, a fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think-tank. “They need to be handled very carefully.”<br />
<br />
The government was scheduled to release the census in early April. Liu Aihua, a spokesperson at the National Bureau of Statistics, said on April 16 that the delay was partly due to the need for “more preparation work” ahead of the official announcement. The delay has been widely criticised on social media.<br />
<br />
Local officials have also braced for the data’s release. Chen Longgan, deputy director of Anhui province’s statistics bureau, said in a meeting this month that officials should “set the agenda” for census interpretation and “pay close attention to public reaction”.<br />
<br />
Analysts said a decline would suggest that China’s population could peak earlier than official projections and could soon be exceeded by India’s, which is estimated at 1.38bn. That could take an extensive toll on the world’s second-largest economy, affecting everything from consumption to care for the elderly.<br />
<br />
“The pace and scale of China’s demographic crisis are faster and bigger than we imagined,” said Huang. “That could have a disastrous impact on the country.”<br />
<br />
China’s birth rates have weakened even after Beijing relaxed its decades-long family planning policy in 2015, allowing all couples to have two children instead of one. The population expanded under the one-child policy introduced in the late 1970s, thanks to a bulging population of young people in the aftermath of the Communist revolution as well as increased life expectancy.<br />
<br />
Official data showed the number of newborns in China increased in 2016 but then fell for three consecutive years. Officials blamed the decline on a shrinking number of young women and the surging costs of child-rearing.<br />
<br />
The real picture could be even worse. In a report published last week, China’s central bank estimated that the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman was likely to have in her lifetime, was less than 1.5, compared with the official estimate of 1.8.<br />
<br />
“It is almost a fact that China has overestimated its birth rate,” the People’s Bank of China said. “The challenges brought about by China’s demographic shift could be bigger [than expected].”<br />
<br />
A Beijing-based government adviser who declined to be identified said such overestimates stemmed in part from the fiscal system’s use of population figures to determine budgets, including for education and public security.<br />
<br />
“There is an incentive for local governments to play up their [population] numbers so they can get more resources,” the person said.<br />
<br />
The situation has led to calls for a radical overhaul of China’s birth control rules. The PBoC report suggested the government should “completely” abandon its “wait-and-see attitude” and scrap family planning entirely.<br />
<br />
“Policy relaxations will be of little use when no one wants to have [more children],” the paper said.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://newint.org/features/2020/04/07/long-read-hitting-population-brakes Hitting the Population Brakes] Danny Dorling; New Internationalist; June 2020<br />
<br />
=== land use ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/land-use-change-has-affected-almost-a-third-of-worlds-terrain-since-1960 Land-use change has affected ‘almost a third’ of world’s terrain since 1960] Carbon Brief; 11 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|Current estimates of land-use change may be capturing only one-quarter of its true extent across the world, new research shows.<br />
<br />
The paper, published in Nature Communications, revises previous estimates of how much humans change the Earth’s land surface – such as via the destruction of tropical rainforests. It finds that, when accounting for multiple instances of change in the same place, 720,000 square kilometres of land surface has changed annually since 1960 – an area, the authors note, “about twice the size of Germany”.<br />
<br />
These new estimates are a synthesis of high-resolution satellite imagery and long-term inventories of land use. Combining these two types of data sources, the authors write, allows them to examine land-use change in “unprecedented” detail. }}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2 Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated] Karina Winkler et al; Nature Communications; 11 May 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22702-2.pdf pdf]<br />
<br />
== solutions ==<br />
<br />
=== strategy ===<br />
* [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/solving-the-climate-crisis-lessons-from-ozone-depletion-and-covid19/5EDA7826880AB40E01E0CEFB7527B7EE Solving the climate crisis: lessons from ozone depletion and COVID-19] Mark P. Baldwin, Timothy M. Lenton; Cambridge University Press; 21 Sep 2020<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The ‘climate crisis’ describes human-caused global warming and climate change and its consequences. It conveys the sense of urgency surrounding humanity's failure to take sufficient action to slow down, stop and reverse global warming. The leading direct cause of the climate crisis is carbon dioxide (CO2) released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels,i which supply ~87% of the world's energy. The second most important cause of the climate crisis is deforestation to create more land for crops and livestock. The solutions have been stated as simply ‘leave the fossil carbon in the ground’ and ‘end deforestation’. Rather than address fossil fuel supplies, climate policies focus almost exclusively on the demand side, blaming fossil fuel users for greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental reason that we are not solving the climate crisis is not a lack of green energy solutions. It is that governments continue with energy strategies that prioritize fossil fuels. These entrenched energy policies subsidize the discovery, extraction, transport and sale of fossil fuels, with the aim of ensuring a cheap, plentiful, steady supply of fossil energy into the future. This paper compares the climate crisis to two other environmental crises: ozone depletion and the COVID-19 pandemic. Halting and reversing damage to the ozone layer is one of humanity's greatest environmental success stories. The world's response to COVID-19 demonstrates that it is possible for governments to take decisive action to avert an imminent crisis. The approach to solving both of these crises was the same: (1) identify the precise cause of the problem through expert scientific advice; (2) with support by the public, pass legislation focused on the cause of the problem; and (3) employ a robust feedback mechanism to assess progress and adjust the approach. This is not yet being done to solve the climate crisis, but working within the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement framework, it could be. Every nation can contribute to solving the climate crisis by: (1) changing their energy strategy to green energy sources instead of fossil fuels; and (2) critically reviewing every law, policy and trade agreement (including transport, food production, food sources and land use) that affects the climate crisis.}}<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.4.53 The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions] Kenneth Gillingham and James H. Stock; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 32, Number 4—Fall 2018—Pages 53–72<br />
{{Q|What is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The principles of economics deliver a crisp answer: reduce emissions to the point that the marginal benefits of the reduction equal its marginal costs. This answer can be implemented by a Pigouvian tax, for example a carbon tax where the tax rate is the marginal benefit of the emissions reduction or, equivalently, the monetized damages from emitting an additional ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The carbon externality will then be internalized and the market will find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions up to the amount of the carbon tax.<br />
<br />
However, most countries, including the United States, do not place an economy-wide tax on carbon, and instead have an array of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that provide subsidies or restrictions typically aimed at specific technologies or sectors. Such climate policies range from automobile fuel economy standards, to gasoline taxes, to mandating that a certain amount of electricity in a state comes from renewables, to subsidizing solar and wind electrical generation, to mandates requiring the blending of biofuels into the surface transportation fuel supply, to supply-side restrictions on fossil fuel extraction. In the world of a Pigouvian tax, markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, but in the world we live in, economists need to weigh in on the costs of specific technologies or narrow interventions.<br />
<br />
This paper reviews the costs of various technologies and actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
==== carbon pricing ====<br />
* [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/02/24/prices-in-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-market-are-soaring Prices in the world’s biggest carbon market are soaring] Economist; 27 Feb 2021<br />
* [https://view.e.economist.com/?qs=094712a6b28a353124fd150b07392518d46bc73d3778efb76f4ded2c877d763ed6da2f846ccba2716dd14688f52baaa9b3331691145308816a3cbe83fe26fb5c12e2398bdbc2bc1c46b9b845026d48d6 The Climate Issue] Economist; 17 May 2021<br />
{{Q|The cost of polluting is on the rise in Europe. Last week the price of carbon in the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) surpassed €55 ($67) per tonne of carbon-dioxide equivalent. That is a record price for the world’s biggest carbon market and represents an increase of over 100% since December.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/meet-the-conservatives-with-surprisingly-smart-solutions-to-climate-change/ The surprisingly smart solution to climate change — coming from conservatives] New York Post; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54271903 Low tax on heating is bad for climate, report says] Roger Harrabin; BBC; 24 September 2020<br />
{{Quote|The rich benefit most from a de facto subsidy for home heating, a report says. The paper from the think tank Green Alliance makes the point that heating gas incurs VAT at only 5% instead of the usual 20%. Because the wealthy own the biggest houses, it says, they gain twice as much as the poorest from low VAT.<br />
The report suggests increasing VAT, then using the proceeds to insulate the homes of the poor. It also recommends increasing their benefits.}}<br />
<br />
==== offsets ====<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310882562122878981.html offsets] Tom Nicholas; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
===== forest offsets =====<br />
{{Quote|Forest offsets have been criticized for a variety of problems, including the risks that the carbon reductions will be short-lived, that carbon savings will be wiped out by increased logging elsewhere, and that the projects are preserving forests never in jeopardy of being chopped down, producing credits that don’t reflect real-world changes in carbon levels.<br />
<br />
But CarbonPlan’s analysis highlights a different issue, one interlinked with these other problems. Even if everything else about a project were perfect, developers would still be able to undermine the program by exploiting regional averages.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ClimateFran/status/1388138541536870404 Frances Moore on Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|Forest and soil carbon are an important piece of the climate change problem. But using land management to "offset" industrial emissions is a terrible idea. The incentives are all wrong and the administrative burden impossibly high}}<br />
** [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere] by Lisa Song, ProPublica, and James Temple, MIT Technology Review; 29 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.}}<br />
*** [https://carbonplan.org/research/forest-offsets-explainer Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets] Grayson Badgley et al; CarbonPLan.org [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870v1 preprint] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/04/29/2021.04.28.441870.full.pdf pdf] <br />
{{Quote|Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. Because offsets effectively allow pollution to continue, however, they must reflect real climate benefits.<br />
<br />
To better understand whether these climate claims hold up in practice, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of California's forest carbon offsets program — the largest such program in existence, worth more than $2 billion. Our analysis of crediting errors demonstrates that a large fraction of the credits in the program do not reflect real climate benefits. The scale of the problem is enormous: 29% of the offsets we analyzed are over-credited, totaling 30 million tCO₂e worth approximately $410 million.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmentalism ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/3844199369031980 Did ancestors live in harmony with nature?] Iida Ruishalme/Thoughscapism; facebook; 2021<br />
{{Quote| "Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
...<br />
What, then, are we to make of contemporary efforts to recapture this non-existent wisdom? [...] Where the myth can become counter-productive, however, is in its distrust of industrialised society. Not only is this distrust hopelessly quixotic in the twenty-first century, it overlooks the many positive developments in modern environmentalism—the continued development of carbon-neutral technology and the growing global cooperation on meeting climate goals, for example—that are dependent on our globalised, industrialised world. Industrialisation may have got us into this mess, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get us out of it.<br />
What won’t get us out if this mess are the low-tech solutions offered by believers in the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. <br />
...<br />
We can’t return to an environmental golden age that never existed, and we’re not helping the planet by rejecting industrialisation in the false hope that we can." }}<br />
* [https://areomagazine.com/2021/03/02/the-myth-of-ancient-environmental-wisdom/ The Myth of Ancient Environmental Wisdom] Aero magazine; 02/03/2021<br />
{{Quote|One of the oldest and most influential of these beliefs is the myth of ancient environmental wisdom. This is the idea that our current ecological woes can all be traced back to the industrial revolution. Before that time, it’s argued, our ancestors lived in harmony with the natural world. This was partly due to the nature of preindustrial life: in a time before planes, pesticides and petrochemicals, there were simply fewer ways for people to damage the environment. More importantly, however, the myth insists that our ancestors were guided by respect and reverence towards our planet, and refused to act in ways that were unsustainable or destructive. It was the loss of this connection with the Earth, during the advent of industrialisation and mass urbanisation, that began our rapid descent into climate chaos.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The only problem? No such golden age ever existed.<br />
<br />
Curiously, people very rarely offer evidence to support the notion that our ancestors lived environmentally friendly lives. It’s generally simply assumed that, since today’s industrial societies are so out of sync with the natural world, preindustrial societies must have been innately attuned to the Earth.<br />
<br />
But the available evidence doesn’t support this assumption. Whenever and wherever we choose to look, humans have demonstrated a capability and willingness to over-exploit and degrade the natural world in ways that argue strongly against any ancient environmental wisdom over and above what we possess today.<br />
<br />
In the centuries before industrialisation, for instance, agricultural societies were already driving a number of species towards extinction. Bears and wolves were deliberately pushed out of Western Europe, where they survive today only in remote and disconnected pockets. The Asiatic lion and cheetah, both of which historically roamed throughout much of India and the Middle East, were similarly persecuted and driven into ever smaller territories. Others weren’t so lucky: the auroch, the wild ancestor of cattle, was hunted to extinction in Poland during the seventeenth century. The dodo, Steller’s sea cow and the three metre-tall elephant bird were also wiped out before industrialisation.<br />
<br />
Even further back in time, our ancestors were responsible for significant levels of deforestation across much of the world. For example, there’s evidence to suggest that many pre-Columbian civilisations, such as the Maya of Central America, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, leading to drops in biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health. A 2016 study likewise found that prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe may have been deliberately burning back forests since the Ice Age, some 20,000 years ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== natural v unnatural ===<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0661-z.epdf?shared_access_token=xyPzey2YrZfc7p0ajfGhN9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0P9tlt7NUKw2BO7vvh2q_CNlTfQ_TasKDxqbnshwakPElDLFf-LJYYJbfdS815uaGlYXTVrDuMxDsiZAovrHoGlXaSAE89lDlgAUCg2xcT_mg%3D%3D Unnatural climate solutions?] Rob Bellamy and Shannon Osaka; Nature Climate Change; Feb 2020<br />
Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. *e-mail: rob.bellamy@manchester.ac.uk<br />
<br />
{{Quote| Framing solutions to climate change as natural strongly influences their acceptability, but what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is selected, not self-evident. We suggest that the current, narrow formulation of natural climate solutions risks constraining what are thought of as desirable policy options. <br />
<br />
There is growing interest in using natural climate solutions to ameliorate the problem of anthropogenic global warming1–4. These would involve conserving, restoring or enhancing forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural lands to reduce CO2 emissions and/or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specific actions include reforestation, forest conservation and management, biochar burial, agroforestry, cropland nutrient management, conservation agriculture, coastal wetland restoration, and peatland conservation and restoration. Natural climate solutions are contrasted with emerging technologies for carbon removal such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which has featured prominently in climate scenarios that are consistent with keeping the rise in global temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Natural climate solutions, it has been suggested, are cheaper, are already tested and do not carry the same risks to water use, biodiversity and ecosystem services2. Indeed, it is often claimed that natural climate solutions would bring additional benefits to ecosystem services, including to biodiversity, water filtration and flood control, soil enrichment and air filtration. Another, often unacknowledged, benefit of natural climate solutions is in their name. Whether or not something is considered natural is well known to be an important predictor of public opinion: courses of action that are perceived as natural are seen as more desirable than those that are perceived as artificial, or unnatural5,6. And public support is crucial if we are to find socially robust solutions to climate change and develop effective policies around them. But what if natural solutions were not as natural as they might seem? And what if unnatural solutions were not as unnatural? We argue that, contrary to widely held assumptions, the nature of natural climate solutions is far from self-evident, and that the boundaries of this category arise from a particular and contestable conceptualization of what constitutes external, non-human nature. We suggest that scientists and policymakers need to recognize natural climate solutions not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people acting in social groups. Under this view, we can branch out to alternative, still natural, solutions and avoid a dangerous narrowing of policy options. Delimiting what is natural Nature is universal. That is to say, it encapsulates the physical world in its entirety, including both untouched nature and nature modified by humans, as well as, of course, humans themselves. But nature is also social: people, acting in social groups, delineate the boundaries of what is considered natural and what is considered unnatural or artificial7. For natural climate solutions, a particular version of external, non-human nature has been advanced that focuses on the conservation, restoration or enhancement of selected aspects of ostensibly natural ecosystems (for example, forest, coastal wetland and peatland restoration) and selected aspects of nature modified by humans (for example, biochar burial, agroforestry and cropland nutrient management). Natural climate solutions thus hark back to ideas of nature as a holistic entity that must be both protected against human intrusion and restored to an authentic, original state. By professing to restore lost and threatened ecosystems, or using techniques inspired by the natural world, natural climate solutions leverage traditional ideas about an external nature in support of particular climate policies. But in specifying which techniques count as natural climate solutions, other options are inadvertently or tacitly specified as unnatural or artificial. The version of natural climate solutions being advanced can be broadly said to involve enhancing (or in some cases, imitating) existing natural processes. Most obviously, this seems to exclude articles manufactured from nature, precluding approaches such as direct air capture and storage, or low-carbon concrete. But it also omits approaches that should fall under this definition. Increasing the ocean’s alkalinity, for instance, is excluded but involves the enhancement of an otherwise relatively untouched nature: the oceans. In the same vein, enhanced weathering is omitted from natural climate solutions but could involve enhancing agricultural land, an aspect of nature modified by humans. Then there are inconsistencies in how more ambiguous approaches are classified. For instance, biochar burial and BECCS both involve enhancing an existing natural process (biomass growth) and articles manufactured from nature (pyrolysis plants and power stations combined with carbon capture and storage, respectively), but biochar burial is classed as a natural solution and BECCS is not. Perhaps the difference is that whereas biochar has been associated with civilizations in the Amazon — a group that we now consider to have lived in relative harmony with nature — BECCS has been associated with large-scale industrial agriculture and modern technology. The point here is that where the lines are drawn on what constitutes a ‘natural’ climate solution is not self-evident but selected — which means that they can be selected differently. And all climate solutions are fair game: they all come from a universal nature, and their different natural characteristics can be emphasized or de-emphasized to make them seem natural or unnatural, be it through inadvertent, tacit or deliberate means. The effect is one of framing: these solutions are natural, and those are not. It creates a conflated binary choice between the ostensibly natural and the ostensibly unnatural (Table 1). This natural framing is very important when it comes to the way in which climate solutions are perceived. Climate solutions can be framed in different ways, with different effects. But when something is presented as being natural, it is seen as more desirable than something that is presented — or implied — as being unnatural. Take, for example, direct air capture and storage, which when presented as being ‘like artificial trees’ is viewed significantly more favourably than when presented as a chemical process involving large industrial machinery8. Neither framing is necessarily any more ‘correct’ than the other; they are each merely partial, selective representations. Similarly, if the industrial burning of biomass for biochar burial — or the large-scale engineering and machinery involved in ecosystem restorations — were selectively emphasized, such solutions might seem somewhat less natural, and therefore somewhat less desirable. Powerful though such natural framings are, they cannot provide answers for all our climate policy dilemmas. We now live in a hybrid climate composed of both natural variability and anthropogenic forcings. Even with the help of natural climate solutions, a fully natural climate cannot be restored, just as current forms of wilderness inevitably bear some human fingerprint. Labelling some climate solutions as natural and others as artificial belies the reality that all technologies and policy actions lie somewhere in between. Expanding the range of solutions Natural climate solutions as they are currently being articulated in the literature also suffer from a great deal of hype and a great number of technical limitations, risks and uncertainties. Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding an article in Science9 that estimated that tree planting alone could sequester 205 GtC, which has now been shown to be an estimate approximately five times too large10. Add to this limitations to potential from land area requirements, risks to biodiversity and the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and uncertainties around the monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas stocks and fluxes11, among other things, and natural climate solutions might not be as desirable as they first appear. In the context of the vast scale of carbon removal required to meet international ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement12, framing this select set of climate solutions as natural, and thus inherently more desirable, dangerously narrows the range of climate solutions deemed attractive to policymakers. We therefore have three recommendations for both scientists and policymakers with respect to how the natural framing of climate solutions is used (and abused). First, we recommend that natural climate solutions be recognized not as a self-evident category, but one that is delimited by people and that is therefore open to alternative, more fruitful conceptualizations. Second, we recommend that the current, restricted conceptualization is resisted to avoid an unnecessary and dangerous narrowing of options. And third, we recommend that the meaning of ‘nature’ is expanded to capture the full range of climate solutions available to us — because we’ll need everything we can get.<br />
<br />
References <br />
<br />
* 1. Kabisch, N. etal. Ecol. Soc. 21, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239 (2016). <br />
* 2. Griscom, B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017). <br />
* 3. Fargione, J. etal. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018). <br />
* 4. Seddon, N. etal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019). <br />
* 5. Sjöberg, L. J. Risk Res. 3, 353–367 (2000). <br />
* 6. Corner, A. etal. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013). <br />
* 7. Castree, N. & Braun, B. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001). <br />
* 8. Corner, A. & Pidgeon, N. Climatic Change 130, 425–438 (2015). <br />
* 9. Bastin, J. etal. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). <br />
* 10. Veldman, J. etal. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019). <br />
* 11. Greenhouse Gas Removal (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2018). <br />
* 12. Rogelj, J. etal. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. etal.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== population reduction ===<br />
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246304/ Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems] Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook; PNAS; 2014<br />
<br />
=== CCS ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScienceForSustainability/permalink/4100837739972913 discussion on CCS with Suzie Ferguson] Facebook; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== CDR / GHG removal ===<br />
==== overview / explainers ====<br />
* [https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal/royal-society-greenhouse-gas-removal-report-2018.pdf Greenhouse Gas Removal] Royal Society (pdf) (downloaded)<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change] Carbon Brief; April 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* Afforestation and reforestation<br />
* Biochar<br />
* BECCS<br />
* ‘Blue carbon’ habitat restoration<br />
* Building with biomass<br />
* Cloud or ocean treatment with alkali<br />
* Direct air capture<br />
* Enhanced ocean productivity<br />
* Enhanced weathering<br />
* Soil carbon sequestration<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== research ====<br />
* [https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-invests-over-30m-in-large-scale-greenhouse-gas-removal/ UK invests over £30m in large-scale greenhouse gas removal]<br />
{{Q|These GHG removal (GGR) demonstrator projects will investigate:<br />
* management of peatlands to maximise their GHG removal potential in farmland near Doncaster, and at upland sites in the South Pennines and in Pwllpeiran, west Wales<br />
* enhanced rock weathering – crushing silicate rocks and spreading the particles at field trial sites on farmland in mid-Wales, Devon and Hertfordshire<br />
* use of biochar, a charcoal-like substance, as a viable method of carbon sequestration. Testing will take place at arable and grassland sites in the Midlands and Wales, a sewage disposal site in Nottinghamshire, former mine sites and railway embankments<br />
* large-scale tree planting, or afforestation, to assess the most effective species and locations for carbon sequestration at sites across the UK. It includes land owned by the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and Network Rail<br />
* rapid scale-up of perennial bioenergy crops such as grasses (Miscanthus) and short rotation coppice willow at locations in Lincolnshire and Lancashire.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Forest ====<br />
* [https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/carbon-sequestration-natural-forest-regrowth Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought] World Resources Institute; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote| New research finds that letting forests regrow naturally can absorb 23% of the world's CO2 emissions every year. }}<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2686-x Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth] | ([[media:Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth - Cook-Patton, Leavitt, Gibbs et al - Nature 2020.pdf|copy]]) Cook-Patton, S.C., Leavitt, S.M., Gibbs, D. et al. ; Nature 585, 545–550 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
To constrain global warming, we must strongly curtail greenhouse gas emissions and capture excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. Regrowing natural forests is a prominent strategy for capturing additional carbon, but accurate assessments of its potential are limited by uncertainty and variability in carbon accumulation rates. To assess why and where rates differ, here we compile 13,112 georeferenced measurements of carbon accumulation. Climatic factors explain variation in rates better than land-use history, so we combine the field measurements with 66 environmental covariate layers to create a global, one-kilometre-resolution map of potential aboveground carbon accumulation rates for the first 30 years of natural forest regrowth. This map shows over 100-fold variation in rates across the globe, and indicates that default rates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate aboveground carbon accumulation rates by 32 per cent on average and do not capture eight-fold variation within ecozones. Conversely, we conclude that maximum climate mitigation potential from natural forest regrowth is 11 per cent lower than previously reported owing to the use of overly high rates for the location of potential new forest. Although our data compilation includes more studies and sites than previous efforts, our results depend on data availability, which is concentrated in ten countries, and data quality, which varies across studies. However, the plots cover most of the environmental conditions across the areas for which we predicted carbon accumulation rates (except for northern Africa and northeast Asia). We therefore provide a robust and globally consistent tool for assessing natural forest regrowth as a climate mitigation strategy.}}<br />
<br />
==== Soil sequestration ====<br />
===== MIT =====<br />
* [https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/amp/ Why we can’t count on carbon-sucking farms to slow climate change] by James Temple June 3, 2020; MIT Technology Review<br />
{{Quote|there is little evidence that carbon farming works as well as promised.<br />
<br />
The world’s farmlands do have the capacity to store billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the soil annually, according to a National Academies report last year. But there is still uncertainty concerning which farming techniques work, and to what degree, across different soil types, depths, topographies, crop varieties, climate conditions, and time periods.<br />
<br />
It’s unclear whether the practices can be carried out over long periods and on a massive scale across the world’s farms without undercutting food production. And there are significant disagreements about what it will take to accurately measure and certify that farms are actually removing and storing increased amounts of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
These uncertainties further complicate the well-documented challenges in setting up any reliable carbon offsets program. Studies have frequently found these systems can substantially overestimate reductions, as economic, environmental and political pressures all push toward issuing large numbers of offsets credits. The programs can also create opportunities for gamesmanship and greenwashing that undermine real progress on climate change, observers say.}}<br />
<br />
==== Iida Ruishalme ====<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
==== Direct Air Capture ====<br />
* [https://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2016/11/29/artificial-trees-might-be-needed-to-offset-carbon-dioxide-emissions/ ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD OFFSET CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS] Nortwestern.edu<br />
<br />
* [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/11/tennessee-lab-discovers-method-remove-carbon-air/96446894/ Tenn. lab discovers method to remove carbon from air] 2017<br />
<br />
=== Steel ===<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/panorama/ssab-americas-to-produce-first-fossilfree-steel-20191223 SSAB Americas to Produce First Fossil-Free Steel in North America] <br />
{{Quote|SSAB’s US mills utilize scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, using almost 100% recycled materials in their production process. In addition to scrap, SSAB Iowa and SSAB Alabama (located just outside of Mobile) intend to utilize fossil-free sponge iron produced in Sweden as part of the Hybrit project in the coming years, enabling the eventual production of fossil-free steel.}}<br />
<br />
=== Passive Radiative Cooling ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 The super-cool materials that send heat to space] XiaoZhi Lim; nature; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== geoengineering ===<br />
* [https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/arctic/articles/2017/04/12/the-case-for-geoengineering-our-way-to-a-cooler-arctic The Case for Geoengineering Our Way to a Cooler Arctic] New Humanitarian; Apr 2017<br />
<br />
== decarbonisation plans ==<br />
<br />
=== energy modelling ===<br />
* [https://www.openmod-initiative.org/ openmod open energy modelling initiative] [https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Main_Page wiki]<br />
<br />
=== enroads ===<br />
* [https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ En-ROADS Climate Change Solutions Simulator]<br />
* [https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.38 En-ROADS]<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/the-professor-who-turns-climate-change-into-a-game The Professor Who Turns Climate Change Into a Game] Eric Roston; Bloomberg; 22 April 2020<br />
<br />
=== Jessie Jenkins ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pxZZwd2BsQ Getting to Zero: Deep Decarbonisation of the Power Sector] Jesse Jenkins; YouTube; July 2019<br />
{{Quote|SUMMARY: Avoiding the worst effects of #ClimateChange requires near-zero electricity sector CO2 emissions by mid-century. Despite agreement on the need for “#DeepDecarbonization” of the electric power sector, there remains considerable uncertainty and debate about the relative importance of various low-carbon electricity resources in near-zero-emissions power systems. <br />
Do recent cost declines and performance improvements for wind, solar, and energy storage technologies mean we are now on a "fully renewable" pathway to zero carbon? <br />
With new nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects struggling to compete—or even complete!—should we abandon these more reliable low-carbon resources, or redouble efforts to overcome challenges to their adoption? And what role does energy storage or increased control over electricity consumption play in all of this? <br />
<br />
In this seminar, Jesse D. Jenkins will present recent research systematically evaluating the role of various low-carbon resources under increasingly stringent CO2 limits and considering a wide range of uncertainty in technology costs, renewable resource quality, and demand patterns. <br />
This comprehensive evaluation finds that cost-effective deep decarbonization relies on at least one reliable resource playing the role of a “flexible base” for the low-carbon power system, augmenting "fuel-saving" variable renewables. Energy storage and demand response provide "fast bursts" of power and play a distinct and complementary role. Furthermore, the best mix of resources for a zero carbon system may differ from the least-cost resource portfolio suited to more modest goals. This indicates a potential for path-dependency or costly lock-in if decarbonization proceeds myopically. This work implies that physical science and engineering research should improve and expand the set of flexible base resources. Policy should also harness a diverse suite of low-carbon technologies and avoid narrowing support to variable renewables alone. Failing to deploy sufficient flexible base capacity could significantly increase the cost of deep decarbonization of power systems—and thus the overall costs of climate mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/voltscast-jesse-jenkins-on-energy Voltscast: Jesse Jenkins on energy modeling] David Roberts; Voltscast; Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== transitions - Vaclav Smil ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szikg74kgnM Energy Systems : Transition & Innovation | Vaclav Smil] YouTube<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxO3s0U5WdY Energy Transitions – Vaclav Smil, Energy 2030] 25 Mar 2013 Vaclav Smil presents as part of WGSI's Energy 2030 Summit (June 5-9, 2011).<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sac18hUuI4 Reconciling Slow Transition & Fast Climate Change | Vaclav Smil] YouTube; 2019<br />
<br />
=== global - UN - nuclear ===<br />
==== IEA ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IEA-assessment-of-nuclear-highly-impractical-,-say IEA assessment of nuclear 'impractical', says World Nuclear Association] WNA; May 2021<br />
{{Q|The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario puts too much faith in technologies that are "uncertain, untested or unreliable" and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution that nuclear technologies could make, World Nuclear Association said today.}}<br />
<br />
==== UN - nuclear ====<br />
* [https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/publications/nuclear-entry-pathways Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources and the United Nations Resource Management System: Use of Nuclear Fuel Resources for Sustainable Development - Entry Pathways] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|The world’s energy sector is undergoing a profound transition. This transition is driven by the need to expand access to clean energy in support of socio-economic development, especially in emerging economies, while at the same time limiting the impacts of climate change, pollution and other unfolding global environmental crises. Fundamentally this transition requires a shift from the use of polluting energy sources towards the use of sustainable alternatives. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic also reminds us of the importance of resilience in the energy system and is a profound motivation for countries to ‘build back better’. There are many pathways to achieving this transition and each country will pursue its own route, taking into account its own endowment of natural resources as well as other local and regional factors. The UN’s 2030 agenda, distilled in the sustainable development goals, has become an indispensable tool for decision-makers concerned with navigating these difficult decisions. This report explores the potential for nuclear energy as part of the energy portfolio and shows how the utilisation of local or regional uranium resources can provide a platform for sustainable development. It explores potential entry pathways in the context of local and regional factors, including the utilization of domestic uranium resources, which could facilitate nuclear energy and economic development by applying the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) and United Nations Resource Management System (UNRMS).}}<br />
<br />
=== USA ===<br />
* [https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-need-talk-nuclear-power/ Liebreich: We Need To Talk About Nuclear Power]<br />
==== Biden admin / American jobs plan ====<br />
* [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan] MARCH 31, 2021<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-coolest-parts-of-bidens-expansive The coolest parts of Biden's expansive infrastructure plan] David Roberts; Volts; April 2021<br />
** [https://www.vox.com/22337863/joe-manchin-biden-climate-change-senate-clean-energy-standard Biden’s most important climate promise hinges on how his next big bill gets through Congress] David Roberts' Vox; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/oboylemm/status/1386905979447517186 Mike O'Boyle on Twitter]<br />
* [https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-25-2021 Heather Cox Richardson]<br />
* [https://twitter.com/atrembath/status/1379498898314563585 thread] Alex Trembath, BTI; Twitter; 6 April 2021<br />
{{quote|The Biden infrastructure package is evidence of the way climate politics have evolved over the last 15 years. There are many people/orgs to thank for this. I'm proud to say we @TheBTI have anticipated and advocated for this style of politics since our founding.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vox.com/22401917/biden-climate-plan-summit-republicans-congress-midterm-elections America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?] David Roberts; VOX; Apr 27, 2021<br />
<br />
===== nuclear =====<br />
* [https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/white-house-wants-nuclear-clean-212801341.html White House Wants Nuclear in Clean Energy Mandate, McCarthy Says]<br />
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/nuclear-should-be-considered-part-of-clean-energy-standard-white-house-says/ Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says] ars technica; TIM DE CHANT - 4/2/2021<br />
<br />
==== 2020/2021 Princeton NZA / VCE / AGU studies ====<br />
<br />
* [https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/new-net-zero-studies-on-electricity-decarbonization What New Net-Zero Studies Tell Us About Electricity Decarbonization] Breakthrough; Feb 22, 2021<br />
{{Quote|A slew of new net-zero studies have been published in recent months, including Princeton's Net Zero America (NZA) project, the Vibrant Clean Energy Zero By Fifty scenario, and by a team of researchers led by Jim Williams at USF. All three of these take a deep-dive into how the US could reach net-zero emissions by 2050, down to the level of where each new generating facility might be located, where new transmission lines would be built, and how electricity generation sources can meet hourly grid demand in different regions of the country. Each study contains multiple scenarios looking at the sensitivity to future technology prices, land use constraints, and other factors. But for simplicity, we focus in this comparison on their marker scenarios: E+ for NZA, the default Zero By Fifty scenario from Vibrant, and the central scenario from Williams et al. Both NZA and Williams et al. use a combination of the EnergyPATHWAYS (EP) and RIO models to generate their scenarios, while Vibrant uses their WIS:dom model.<br />
<br />
While the models differ in important ways, they all paint a broadly similar picture. Wind and solar expand rapidly in the next three decades. US coal use falls off a cliff, reaching zero by 2030 or 2035. At the same time, natural gas use stays rather flat — or even increases modestly — between 2020 and 2030, as it serves a key role in filling in the gaps in variable renewable generation. Gas capacity actually increases in two of the three decarbonization models through 2050, though capacity factors — how often the gas plants are run — fall rapidly, and gas increasingly becomes a blend of hydrogen and methane closer to 2050.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://issues.org/california-decarbonizing-power-wind-solar-nuclear-gas/ Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future] BY JANE C.S. LONG, EJEONG BAIK, JESSE D. JENKINS, CLEA KOLSTER, KIRAN CHAWLA, ARNE OLSON, ARMOND COHEN, MICHAEL COLVIN, SALLY M. BENSON, ROBERT B. JACKSON, DAVID G. VICTOR, STEVEN P. HAMBURG; issues; 24 Mar 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''California’s plan to make all of its electricity carbon free by 2045 will double electricity demand. Three groups of analysts optimize its grid to be economically and environmentally sustainable.'''<br />
<br />
California’s government has set ambitious goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, starting with electricity. A 2018 law mandated that, by 2045, all retail sales of electricity in the state must derive from carbon-free sources. Jerry Brown, who was then the governor, issued an accompanying executive order requiring the entire state, not just the electric sector, to zero-out net emissions also by 2045. Policymakers have to grapple with achieving these goals. Reducing emissions in the economy as a whole will increase demand for electricity, which will be used to power cars and heat buildings in place of fossil fuels. Energy planners estimate that such electrification will increase California’s peak demand for electricity from 50 gigawatts today to 100 gigawatts midcentury.<br />
<br />
CAN THIS DEMAND BE MET?<br />
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Clean Air Task Force convened three groups of energy system experts to model California’s electricity system in order to figure out how the state might make that much affordable, clean, and reliable electricity. Groups from Princeton University, Stanford University, and Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based consulting firm, each ran separate models that sought to estimate not only how much electricity would cost under a variety of scenarios, but also the physical implications of building the decarbonized grid. How much new infrastructure would be needed? How fast would the state have to build it? How much land would that infrastructure require? Although each of these models offered its own depictions of the California electricity system and independently explored the ways it would be optimized, they all used the same data with respect to past conditions and they all used the same estimates for future technology costs. Despite distinct approaches to the calculations, all the models yielded very similar conclusions. The most important of these was that solar and wind can’t do the job alone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===== Princeton / Net-Zero America =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmc0JjUbds Net-Zero America] Eric Larson & Jesse Jenkins; Feb 2021<br />
{{Quote|Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, a report issued in December by a large team centered at Princeton University, analyzes five possible pathways for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It has been praised as the most thorough examination to date of deep decarbonization strategies. It quantifies and maps the infrastructure that will need to be built and the investment that will need to be made to achieve net-zero. It shows how jobs and health will be affected in each state.<br />
<br />
In this webinar, the report’s co-principal investigators described the report’s methodology and highlighted findings of special interest to state policymakers. }}<br />
* [https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/15/big-affordable-effort-needed-america-reach-net-zero-emissions-2050-princeton-study Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows] Molly Seltzer, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Dec. 15, 2020<br />
* [https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/net-zero-america-report-release/ big but affordable effort needed for america to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, princeton study shows] <br />
{{Quote|With a massive, nationwide effort the United States could reach net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 using existing technology and at costs aligned with historical spending on energy, according to a study led by Princeton University researchers.<br />
<br />
The new “Net-Zero America” research outlines five distinct technological pathways for the United States to decarbonize its entire economy. The research is the first study to quantify and map with this degree of specificity, the infrastructure that needs to be built and the investment required to run the country without emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than are removed from it each year. It’s also the first to pinpoint how jobs and health will be affected in each state at a highly granular level, sometimes down to the county.<br />
<br />
The study’s five scenarios describe at a highly detailed, state-by-state level the scale and pace of technology and capital mobilization needed across the country, and highlight the implications for land use, incumbent energy industries, employment, and health. Initial results were released December 15, in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts. Journal publications will follow in early 2021.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/?explorer=pathway&state=national&table=ref&limit=200 Net-Zero America project]<br />
{{Quote|This website presents the pathways in an interactive context to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to extract specific results that are most useful to them. The site should be used in conjunction with the Net-Zero America report to fully understand the data contained herein.}}<br />
* [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report download page] | [https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf report PDF]<br />
<br />
===== AGU =====<br />
* [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020AV000284 Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States] James H. Williams et al; AGU Advances; 14 Jan 2021<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation, which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.}}<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-going-carbon-neutral-by-2060-will-make-china-richer Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’] Carbon Brief; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|China’s surprise pledge to reach “carbon neutrality” before 2060 could cut global warming this century by 0.25C and raise the country’s GDP, our new analysis shows.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds China’s 2060 climate pledge is ‘largely consistent’ with 1.5C goal, study finds] Carbon Brief; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|New research has found that China’s pledge to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is “largely consistent” with the Paris Agreement’s aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C. <br />
<br />
But, to stay below this level of warming, the country will need to aim higher than its current net-zero goal and accomplish “deep” emission reductions in the near term, the authors state.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/378 Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit] Hongbo Duan; Science; 23 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Abstract<br />
Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China’s emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the “no policy” case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China’s accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.}}<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
==== Atkins / SNC Lavalin ====<br />
* [https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/Files/S/SNC-Lavalin/download-centre/en/report/engineering-net-zero-summary-report.pdf Net Zero]<br />
<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-the-uk-meet-its-climate-goals-without-the-wylfa-nuclear-plant Q&A: Can the UK meet its climate goals without the Wylfa nuclear plant?] Carbon Brief; Jan 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants u-k-government-weighs-equity-stake-in-new-nuclear-plants]<br />
<br />
== recycling ==<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/what-happens-to-the-plastic-you-recycle-researchers-lift-the-lid-142831 What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== incineration===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/07/revealed-why-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tonnes-of-recycling-are-going-up-in-smoke Revealed: why hundreds of thousands of tonnes of recycling are going up in smoke] Guardian; 7 Mar 2021<br />
<br />
=== pyrolysis ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/10/11/this-kitchen-gadget-turns-waste-into-energy/ This Kitchen Gadget Turns Waste Into Energy] Forbes; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== energy mix ==<br />
<br />
=== data & graphics ===<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Electricity Mix] OWID<br />
<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10158905573232139&set=a.166213287138&type=3&theater Grant Chalmers graphics]<br />
<br />
* [https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/institutional/insights/market-insights/eye-on-the-market/annual-energy-outlook/ Eye on the market - 11th Annual Energy Paper] Michael Cembalest (with Vaclav Smil); J P Morgan; May 2021<br />
** [https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf 2021 Future Shock - Annual Energy Paper] MICHAEL CEMBALEST | JP MORGAN ASSET AND WEALTH MANAGEMENT<br />
<br />
[https://enact.lcp.energy/ The Energy Current] LCP Enact - ''UK / EU real time grid data''<br />
<br />
==== carbon/energy equivalence calculation ====<br />
* [http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ Carbon Calculator] National Energy Foundation<br />
{{Quote|This page contains a simple carbon calculator for use by UK organisations based upon the July 2017 recommended conversion factors provided by Defra as part of its Environmental Reporting Guidelines.}}<br />
* [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020 Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2020] BEIS<br />
{{Quote|The conversion factors are for use by UK and international organisations to report on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.}}<br />
* [https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator] EPA<br />
<br />
=== carbon intensity ===<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl et al; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.}}<br />
<br />
=== lifecycle assessment ===<br />
* [https://group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf Life Cycle Assessment for Vattenfall’s electricity generation] Vattenfall; 2018<br />
* [https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds] Carbon Brief; Dec 2017<br />
** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9 Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling] Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar G. Hertwich & Gunnar Luderer; Nature Energy; 2017<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (∼100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== integrated lifecycle assessment ====<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6277 Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies] Edgar G. Hertwich et al; PNAS; May 2015<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Decarbonization of electricity generation can support climate-change mitigation and presents an opportunity to address pollution resulting from fossil-fuel combustion. Generally, renewable technologies require higher initial investments in infrastructure than fossil-based power systems. To assess the tradeoffs of increased up-front emissions and reduced operational emissions, we present, to our knowledge, the first global, integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA) of long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable sources (i.e., photovoltaic and solar thermal, wind, and hydropower) and of carbon dioxide capture and storage for fossil power generation. We compare emissions causing particulate matter exposure, freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and climate change for the climate-change-mitigation (BLUE Map) and business-as-usual (Baseline) scenarios of the International Energy Agency up to 2050. We use a vintage stock model to conduct an LCA of newly installed capacity year-by-year for each region, thus accounting for changes in the energy mix used to manufacture future power plants. Under the Baseline scenario, emissions of air and water pollutants more than double whereas the low-carbon technologies introduced in the BLUE Map scenario allow a doubling of electricity supply while stabilizing or even reducing pollution. Material requirements per unit generation for low-carbon technologies can be higher than for conventional fossil generation: 11–40 times more copper for photovoltaic systems and 6–14 times more iron for wind power plants. However, only two years of current global copper and one year of iron production will suffice to build a low-carbon energy system capable of supplying the world's electricity needs in 2050.}}<br />
<br />
==== energy density, land take etc ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115300921 Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective] Vincent K.M.Cheng & al; Journal of the Energy Institute; April 2017<br />
{{Q|'''Highlights'''<br />
* The energy densities and spatial footprints of various power generators are estimated.<br />
* Process energy analysis to determine the energy required to produce electricity.<br />
* The nuclear fuel cycle was found to have the highest energy density.<br />
* Renewables produce ‘dilute electricity’ with a large spatial footprint or land-take.<br />
* Bioenergy plants having the lowest energy density, or largest spatial footprint.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/carbon-and-environmental-footprinting-of-low-carbon-uk-electricit Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050] H Alderson et al; University of Bath;<br />
<br />
=== energy payback time/ratio/EROEI ===<br />
* [https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-a-typical-wind-turbine-to-generate-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it How long does it take a typical wind turbine to generate more power than what was used to create it?] Quora; updated April 2017 (also solar, nuclear)<br />
* [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint] By Vanessa Schipani; FactCheck.org; Posted on March 14, 2018<br />
* [https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:27016659 Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods] Kivistoe, A.; Lappeenranta Univ. of Technology (Finland). Dept. of Energy Technology; 1995<br />
{{Quote|The energy payback period, efficiency factor and carbon dioxide emissions in different power generation methods were studied. Nuclear, coal, peat, natural gas, wind and photovoltaic power were examined. To calculate the energy payback period of power generation, the energy inputs of different power generation methods were examined by using hybrid analysis, which is a combination of process analysis and the input-output method. The energy inputs of power generation were examined starting from raw material and fuel resources in the soil and ending up in the power station. The study also considered the handling of spent fuel and combustion residues. The energy payback periods were as follows: nuclear power 20-33 months, coal power 33 months, peat power 26-27 months, gas power 21-27 months, wind power 7 months and photovoltaic power 60-95 months. The energy payback period of nuclear power was strongly influenced by the uranium enrichment method. In natural gas power the energy payback period was influenced by the amount of natural gas used as fuel in compression stations and production fields and in photovoltaic power by the semiconductor material of the cells. The most significant carbon dioxide emissions were produced in the power generation methods based on combustion. Depending on the way of examination, both nuclear power, wind power and photovoltaic power produce carbon dioxide emissions, but on a significantly lower level.}}<br />
==== Weissbach ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492 Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants] Weissbach et al; Energy; April 2013<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544214014327 Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion”] Marco Raugei, Michael Carbajales-Dale, Charles J.Barnhart, Vasilis Fthenakis; Energy; Mar 2015<br />
* [http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2014/11/18/yes-we-can-2-the-weisbach-paper/ Yes We Can 2: The Weißbach Paper] Climate Change Fork blog; 2014<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_return_on_investment Talk:Energy return on investment] Wikipedia<br />
{{Quote|There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. }}<br />
<br />
* [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-017-0033-0 An Exploration of Divergence in EPBT and EROI for Solar Photovoltaics] Graham Palmer & Joshua Floyd; BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality; 2017<br />
<br />
=== materials use - nuclear v solar v wind ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1318790092769521666 thread]<br />
<br />
=== grid ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AEEBoUBGZQ Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin] YouTube<br />
<br />
* [[media:Why Distributed-IEEE Magazine-Burger et al 2019.pdf| Why Distributed: A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources]] Scott P. Burger, Jesse D. Jenkins, Samuel C. Huntington, Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga; IEEE power and energy magazine; march/april 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.gridbrief.com/p/isonew-england-lets-go-reliability-californias-shocking-electricity-bills ISO-New England Lets Go of Reliability // California's Shocking Electricity Bills] Emmet Penney; Grid Brief; 6 April 6, 2022<br />
{{q|The Independent System Operator of New England, which oversees grid reliability in the region, has proposed to phase out its minimum offer price rule (MOPR--pronounced "moper) by 2025. This will have a negative impact on reliability.<br />
<br />
To get into why this is important, it's important to know how capacity auctions work. Every year, capacity owners (power generators like gas plants, wind farms, nuclear plants, etc.) offer to make capacity available in the future at a specific price. ISO-NE then tallies those offers from lowest to highest. It accepts the cheapest bid and then goes higher until it has gotten the generation it needs in the future. The highest of the offers then becomes the "clearing price" that all the lower accepted offers get paid. Bids above that price get rejected--they have not "cleared the auction." Their owners get nothing.}}<br />
<br />
==== islanding ====<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islanding Islanding] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1387821680341434370 Twitter]<br />
{{Quote|So...a 'basic solar fact' is that the grid needs to be ready to split into gated neighborhoods because we can't really supply electricity like we used to?<br />
<br />
This neighborhood spends 10x (because they can afford it) as the grid breaks down...that's the new resiliency?}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/ENERGY/status/1387818720475627523 Twitter] US Department of Energy]<br />
{{Quote|SOLAR 101: “Islanding” isn't just a type of vacation. It also refers to electrical systems that can disconnect from the larger grid to meet local needs with sources like solar. Learn how islanding makes communities more resilient}}<br />
*** [https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-integration-distributed-energy-resources-and-microgrids Solar Integration: Distributed Energy Resources and Microgrids] <br />
{{Quote|Simply put, we need a reliable and secure energy grid. Two ways to ensure continuous electricity regardless of the weather or an unforeseen event are by using distributed energy resources (DER) and microgrids. DER produce and supply electricity on a small scale and are spread out over a wide area. Rooftop solar panels, backup batteries, and emergency diesel generators are examples of DER. While traditional generators are connected to the high-voltage transmission grid, DER are connected to the lower-voltage distribution grid, like residences and businesses are.<br />
<br />
Microgrids are localized electric grids that can disconnect from the main grid to operate autonomously. Because they can operate while the main grid is down, microgrids can strengthen grid resilience, help mitigate grid disturbances, and function as a grid resource for faster system response and recovery.}}<br />
<br />
=== Texas 2021 ===<br />
* [https://atomicinsights.com/preliminary-lessons-available-to-be-learned-from-feb-2021-extended-cold-spell/ Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell] Atomic Insights; February 22, 2021 By Rod Adams<br />
<br />
=== Germany - energiewende ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/analysis-german-wind-swings-make-coalgas-dispatch-26367365 ANALYSIS: GERMAN WIND SWINGS MAKE COAL/GAS DISPATCH MORE VOLATILE]<br />
{{Quote|German wind power output reached a new record this week, peaking above 33 GW overnight Tuesday, but dropped to just 1 GW by Friday, with coal and to a lesser extend also gas-fired power plants providing the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced, a Platts analysis of hourly generation profiles shows.}}<br />
<br />
=== coal ===<br />
* [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-coal-power-plant-1927-2019/ Every Coal Power Plant in the World (1927-2019)] Visual Capitalist<br />
<br />
==== Japan ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1278718702968606721 Simon Evans] Twitter<br />
{{Quote|Japan is planning to build a bunch of new coal plants…but it might also close loads of old ones. What's going on? Plus or minus for climate?!<br />
THREAD with analysis + charts}}<br />
<br />
=== Europe ===<br />
==== France compared to Spain, Germany, Poland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-impacts-of-electrification-the-example-of-france/ The impacts of electrification – the example of France] Roger Andrews, Energy Matters; Sept 2018<br />
<br />
=== UK compared to Germany ===<br />
* [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-britain-beat-germany-race-green-energy-decarbonisation-uk-adam-tooze How Britain beat Germany in the race for green energy] Prospect; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
=== UK ===<br />
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/1/1/uks-clean-energy-outstrips-fossil-fuels-for-1st-time-in-2019 UK’s clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019] Aljazeera; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
==== Scotland ====<br />
* [http://euanmearns.com/the-destruction-of-scottish-power/ The Destruction of Scottish Power] Energy Matters; Posted on January 6, 2016 by Euan Mearns<br />
<br />
=== China ===<br />
==== nuclear ====<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear Power in China] WNN; updated April 2021<br />
* [https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-approves-10bn-plan-build-four-nuclear-reacto/ China approves $10bn plan to build four nuclear reactors] Sept 2020<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think] James Conca; Forbes; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down.}}<br />
<br />
=== Middle East ===<br />
==== UAE / Abu Dhabi ====<br />
*[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UAEs-first-reactor-starts-supplying-power UAE's first reactor starts supplying power] WNN; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
=== Africa ===<br />
* [https://4thgeneration.energy/africa-isnt-scared-of-nuclear-power/ AFRICA ISN’T SCARED OF NUCLEAR POWER] Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|As their economies grow, pre-industrialized countries are beginning to see rapid development and urbanization. This takes a lot of energy, so African governments are looking to nuclear power as a reliable source of baseload energy that won’t contribute to climate change. The IAEA said it has communicated with nearly a dozen African nations about drawing up plans for civilian nuclear energy programs. At least seven nations in sub-Saharan Africa have signed agreements to receive support from Russia to deploy new plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== reliability ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191023-what-would-happen-in-an-apocalyptic-blackout What would happen in an apocalyptic blackout?] BBC future; Oct 2019<br />
<br />
== nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAemz1v7dQ Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?] youtube<br />
<br />
=== radiation and health ===<br />
* [https://srp-uk.org/resources/resources-for-students Posters] The Society for Radiological Protection<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCTHsXGbpfs Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents] youtube 2014<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Tritium ====<br />
* [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards] NRC<br />
<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://webstore.iea.org/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System] IEA<br />
{{Quote| Nuclear power and hydropower form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation. Together, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation. Over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions. However, in advanced economies, nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.<br />
<br />
This report, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, focuses on the role of nuclear power in advanced economies and the factors that put nuclear power at risk of future decline. It is shown that without action, nuclear power in advanced economies could fall by two-thirds by 2040.The implications of such a “Nuclear Fade Case” for costs, emissions and electricity security using two World Energy Outlook scenarios – the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario are examined.<br />
<br />
Achieving the pace of CO2 emissions reductions in line with the Paris Agreement is already a huge challenge, as shown in the Sustainable Development Scenario. It requires large increases in efficiency and renewables investment, as well as an increase in nuclear power. This report identifies the even greater challenges of attempting to follow this path with much less nuclear power. It recommends several possible government actions that aim to ensure existing nuclear power plants can operate as long as they are safe, support new nuclear construction and encourage new nuclear technologies to be developed.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-will-be-key-to-Japan-meeting-climate-goals Nuclear crucial to Japan meeting climate goals, says IEA] World Nuclear News; 04 March 2021<br />
<br />
=== UN ===<br />
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572 Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE] UN News; 11 Aug 2021<br />
{{Q|The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday.}}<br />
<br />
=== reactor technology ===<br />
<br />
==== safety ====<br />
* [https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/supercritical-co2-could-stop-nuclear-meltdown-it-begins.html Supercritical CO2, molten salt could stop a nuclear meltdown before it begins] Horizon - EU; Feb 2017<br />
<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtered_Containment_Venting_System Filtered Containment Venting System] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
===== Taishan EPR radiation leak =====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1404476721076781060 Mark Nelson] Twitter<br />
<br />
==== environmental ====<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say] Guardian; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Planning [https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-001939-SZC_Bk6_ES_V2_Ch22_Marine_Ecology_Appx22D_Sizewell_Characterisation_Report_Fish.pdf documents published] by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year}}<br />
<br />
==== VVER 1200 ====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91yVhrSZ5jQ VVER 1200 Construction] YouTube; Feb 2016<br />
<br />
==== CANDU ====<br />
* [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/CANDU_reactor CANDU reactor] Energy Education Canada<br />
<br />
==== fast breeder reactors ====<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4gd8bwnFow Presentation film for the Fourth power unit BN-800 of Beloyarsk NPP] YouTube; May 2020<br />
<br />
==== advanced reactors ====<br />
* [https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30351-2 Can Distributed Nuclear Power Address Energy Resilience and Energy Poverty?] Alexander Q. Gilbert, <br />
Morgan D. Bazilian; Joule; Aug 2020<br />
<br />
===== Terrapower =====<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower-idUSKBN25N2U8 Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom] reuters; Aug 2020<br />
: Natrium?<br />
<br />
===== USA =====<br />
* [https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/infographic-advanced-reactor-demonstration-program INFOGRAPHIC: Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program] DECEMBER 15, 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://dailyillini.com/news/2020/09/14/university-awaits-approval-for-micronuclear-reactor/ University awaits approval for on-campus micro-nuclear reactor] U of Illinois; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The University may soon be home to a new micro-nuclear reactor, which would provide campus with clean energy, as well as opportunities in research and education on campus. <br />
<br />
The project is pending approval and funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. If awarded, work will begin in 2021, with projected completion by 2026. }}<br />
: USNC reactor - TRISO fuel<br />
<br />
===== Molten Chloride Fast Reactor - Elysium =====<br />
* [https://soundcloud.com/climatefixpodcast/episode-7-elysiums-fast-spectrum Elysium’s Fast Spectrum] Climate Fix Podcast; Soundcloud;<br />
<br />
===== Westinghouse eVinci =====<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6BKKFxN_g eVinciTM Micro Reactor] YouTube Sept 2019<br />
<br />
===== Seaborg =====<br />
* [https://newatlas.com/energy/seaborg-floating-nuclear-reactor-barge/ Mass-produced floating nuclear reactors use super-safe molten salt fuel] Loz Blain; NewAtlas; 15 June 2021<br />
<br />
==== fuel ====<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/22/aneel-a-game-changing-nuclear-fuel/ ANEEL: Thorium-Based Reactor Fuel Could Support A New Wave Of Nuclear Power] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
==== flexibility ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261918303180 The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy] | ([[media:Jenkins et al. 2018 - Benefits of nuclear flexibility - APEN.pdf |copy]]) J.D. Jenkins, Z. Zhoub, R. Poncirolic, R.B. Vilimc, F. Gandac, F. de Sisternesd, A. Botterud; Applied Energy; 2018<br />
<br />
==== Plutonium - breeder reactors - reporocessing ====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2021/04/plutonium-programs-in-east-asia-and-idaho-will-challenge-the-biden-administration/ Plutonium programs in East Asia and Idaho will challenge the Biden administration] Frank N. von Hippel; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; April 12, 2021<br />
<br />
==== Thorium ====<br />
===== Protatctinium - proliferation =====<br />
* [https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ Thorium power has a protactinium problem] Eva C. Uribe; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; August 6, 2018<br />
{{Quote|In 1980, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that protactinium, a chemical element generated in thorium reactors, could be separated and allowed to decay to isotopically pure uranium 233—suitable material for making nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, titled “Advanced Fuel Cycle and Reactor Concepts,” concluded that the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles “would be equivalent to” the uranium/plutonium fuel cycles of conventional civilian nuclear reactors, assuming both included spent fuel reprocessing to isolate fissile material.}}<br />
<br />
=== current ===<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-Energy-permanently-closes-UK-s-Dungeness-B EDF Energy permanently closes UK's Dungeness B] WNN; 08 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== economics ===<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2020/2020-1.html Reducing the costs of nuclear power on the path towards a clean energy future] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency; July 2020<br />
** [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30653?utm_source=mnb&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pressrelease Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear] | ([[media:OECD-NEA - reducing-cost-nuclear-construction - July 2020.pdf|copy]])<br />
{{Quote|This new NEA report focuses on potential cost and project risk reduction opportunities for contemporary Gen‑III reactor designs that could be unlocked in the short term and that are also applicable to small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor concepts for deployment in the longer term. The study identifies longer‑term cost reduction opportunities associated with the harmonisation of codes and standards and licensing regimes. It also explores the risk allocation schemes and mitigation priorities at the outset of well‑performing financing frameworks for new nuclear that require a concerted effort among government, industry and the society as a whole.}}<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753 thread] by David Hess (of World Nuclear) on economics of nuclear with reference to the OECD-NEA report<br />
<br />
=== energy lifecycle / time to repay construction energy ===<br />
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150227072144/http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power] nuclearinfo.net via wayback machine<br />
{{q|The performance of Nuclear Power can also be measured by calculating the total energy required to build and run a Nuclear Power plant and comparing it to the total energy it produces.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
So the Forsmark Plant produces 93 times more energy than it consumes. Or put another way, the non-nuclear energy investment required to generate electricity for 40 years is repaid in 5 months. }}<br />
<br />
=== jobs ===<br />
* [https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/agenda/hinkley-point-c-how-the-megaproject-can-help-fix-the-uks-skills-shortage-12-04-2021/ Hinkley Point C: how the megaproject can help fix the UK’s skills shortage] Construction News; 12 Apr 2021<br />
* [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/uk-firm-advertising-for-irish-workers-to-build-nuclear-power-station-40368008.html UK firm advertising for Irish workers to build nuclear power station] Independent.ie; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== discussion ===<br />
* [https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/can-nuclear-power-offer-a-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis-a-06a8a27f-d492-45d3-8134-30187eefbdf3 Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?] der Speigel<br />
<br />
* [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Atkins-says-UKs-Net-Zero-goal-needs-new-nuclear UK's net-zero goal needs new nuclear, says Atkins] WNN; 13 January 2020<br />
<br />
=== advocacy ===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14534 Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power] OECD-NEA; June 2020<br />
{{Quote|Public attitudes to nuclear power are critical in shaping nuclear policies in OECD/NEA countries and the latter will only be able to make use of this energy source if a well-informed public considers that its benefits outweigh its risks. This report provides a number of insights into public attitudes towards nuclear power. Support for nuclear energy is generally correlated with the level of experience of and knowledge about nuclear power. Interestingly, while the public is generally aware of the contribution of nuclear power to ensuring security of energy supply, its potential contribution to combating climate change is less well recognised. Solving the waste disposal issue would also significantly increase the level of public support. Furthermore, OECD/NEA governments may wish to reflect carefully on how to react to these results as, according to the surveys, they are the least trusted source on energy issues, far behind regulators, non-governmental organisations and scientists.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-iaea-publication-illustrates-nuclear-powers-vital-role-in-mitigating-climate-change New IAEA Publication Illustrates Nuclear Power’s Vital Role in Mitigating Climate Change] IAEA Sept 2020<br />
** [https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020 Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2020] IAEA <br />
<br />
* [https://www.brightnewworld.org/ Bright New World] - Australian<br />
{{Quote|'''IT’S A BALANCING ACT.'''<br />
<br />
We need to acknowledge our challenges but we must focus on our solutions. We need to be as aware of what we are gaining as what we are losing so we know what to fight for, not just what to fight against. We have to stop going negative all day long.<br />
<br />
As far as we know, on average there has never been a better time to be born than now.<br />
<br />
We are living longer.<br />
<br />
We have eliminated horrible diseases and we are still winning those fights. We are growing more food on less land. Violence is decreasing. The world is more literate and more educated.<br />
<br />
A smaller share of humanity lives in poverty and more people are living lives of independence and opportunity.<br />
<br />
'''we are beginning to see a return of nature'''<br />
<br />
Many of these achievements have come at a cost to our natural world. But now we are beginning to see a return of nature, the expansion of forests and the return of wild creatures in places they have not been seen in decades.<br />
<br />
But not everywhere. We continue to lose wild nature as we encroach on other species and their habitat.<br />
<br />
So our challenge is to bring all of humanity on the development journey while stabilizing our climate and restoring our natural world.<br />
<br />
It’s going to be a rocky ride and we are going to have some losses along the way, but we can do this.<br />
<br />
And the critical ingredient is plentiful, clean energy.<br />
<br />
ENERGY. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL SUBSTITUTE.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy to development, fertility rates plummet, helping us stabilize the human population and elevate women into lives of greater choice and opportunity.<br />
<br />
when we apply energy, we liberate human lives<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can liberate human lives and labor, meaning people aren’t just surviving, they are thriving.<br />
<br />
When we apply energy we can be more efficient with other resources. With energy, we can recycle, demanding less of virgin nature to provide for our needs.<br />
<br />
With energy and agriculture we get more food from less land, liberating spaces to remain as nature or return to nature.<br />
<br />
With energy we build dense settlements, clean our water and manage our waste.<br />
<br />
With energy we can liberate our oceans as we grow our own food.<br />
<br />
WE KNOW HOW TO DO THESE THINGS BUT WE RELY ALMOST ENTIRELY ON PLENTIFUL AND RELIABLE FOSSIL FUELS. <br />
<br />
The energy that makes human lives so much better, now threatens us by altering our precious, irreplaceable climate.<br />
<br />
There is an answer. There is a proven energy source that can meet our needs without changing the climate.<br />
<br />
When we use it we save millions of lives because it doesn’t pollute the air.<br />
<br />
It uses less land and less materials.<br />
<br />
It works in every climate and every location.<br />
<br />
IT’S NUCLEAR ENERGY THAT BREAKS THE PARADOX.<br />
We can unify human development with the protection and restoration of wild nature.<br />
<br />
The potential of nuclear energy, especially new generations of super-efficient plants is so great, that we can go large on how we want the world to be.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to make clean synthetic fuels, to recycle more materials, to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, allowing the natural world to heal every step of the way.<br />
<br />
We can use energy to clean and rehabilitate damaged land. We can use new reactors to destroy the waste from older reactors, and gift ourselves clean reliable energy in the process. Nuclear energy provides the path of disarmament, permanently destroying the weapons of war.<br />
<br />
a bright new world is within reach.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO SEE IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO FEEL IT.<br />
<br />
WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO GO FOR IT.<br />
<br />
But it takes a new type of environmental organisation to fight for it.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation that treats humanity as a cause worth fighting for, not an enemy to fight against.<br />
<br />
An organisation that faces up to our challenges but acknowledges and celebrates our achievements. <br />
<br />
An organisation that embraces our knowledge, our potential and the tools at our disposal.<br />
<br />
It takes an organisation like Bright New World.<br />
<br />
We are here to fight for something better. We plan to make it happen and we are going to love every minute of it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://gotnuclear.net/ Got Nuclear] [https://www.instagram.com/gotnuclear/ Instagram] [https://linktr.ee/gotnuclear linktree]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9iPj9SZs Bright Future – Baba Brinkman Music Video] YouTube; Sept 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://whatisnuclear.com/quotes.html Quotes] What Is Nuclear<br />
<br />
=== waste ===<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004 Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste] Laura Leay; The Conversation; 1 May 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nZDSLdIiM Freezing 200,000 Tons of Lethal Arsenic Dust] Tom Scott; YouTube<br />
{{Quote|Giant Mine sits near Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Once it was a productive gold mine, but after the gold ran out, the mining company went bankrupt and left the government to clean up the mess: enough arsenic trioxide dust to kill everyone on Earth. The solution: freezing it, at least for now.}}<br />
<br />
== nuclear accidents ==<br />
=== Chornobyl ===<br />
* [https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-reactors-14-years-disaster-2016-4? Here's why Russia didn't shut down Chernobyl until 14 years after the disaster] Sarah Kramer Apr 26, 2016; Business Insider<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/NuclearOperador/status/1394868165713268738 INCREASE IN FISSION REACTIONS IN CHERNOBYL] Nuclear Operator; Twitter; 19 May 2021<br />
{{Quote|A well-known process in nuclear physics, already identified in Chernobyl back in 1990, has become tabloid news creating unwarranted alarm. I'll try to explain it in a short THREAD.}}<br />
<br />
==== health effects / mutations ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Dr_Keefer/status/1386485023981907969 Twitter thread]<br />
{{Quote|Exploiting children w disabilities for your anti nuclear propaganda is really gross. This issue has been well studied by the worlds leading scientists looking at the Chernobyl liquidator cohorts. No hereditary effects. Zero. Stop fear mongering.<br />
<br />
[image Chernobyl/misinformation/Children's home in Belarus - NatGeo.jpeg]}}<br />
<br />
** [https://www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf Hereditary effects of radiation] UNSCEAR (extract from report); 2001<br />
{{Quote|'''Summary'''<br />
<br />
14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of<br />
them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy<br />
treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles,<br />
gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found<br />
significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.<br />
<br />
15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas<br />
contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings<br />
in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased,<br />
while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children<br />
for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which<br />
had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous<br />
evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome,<br />
congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident] Meredith Yeager et al; Science; 22 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.}}<br />
<br />
==== Russian war ====<br />
[https://twitter.com/clairecorkhill/status/1509446702939447299 Russian soldiers allegedly suffering ARS after digging trenches in Red Forest] Prof Claire Corkhill; Twitter; 31 March 2022<br />
{{q|*rolls eyeballs to the ceiling* This is nonsense. There simply isn't enough radiation in the Red Forest after 30 years. Misquoted the original source too, who said soldiers had been taken for check up. Bad, sensationalist journalism.}}<br />
Responding to article in Metro claiming "Russian troops withdrawn from the Chernobyl nuclear power site are being rushed across the border to a special medical facility in Belarus with ‘acute radiation sickness’". Discussion joined by [[Professor Mike Wood]]<br />
<br />
=== Fukushima ===<br />
* [https://www.nucnet.org/news/institutional-failure-led-to-breakdown-of-public-trust-says-nea-report-3-3-2021 Institutional Failure Led To Breakdown Of Public Trust, Says NEA Report] By David Dalton; NUCNET; 3 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/decade-after-fukushima-disaster-greenpeace-sees-cleanup-failure Decade After Fukushima Disaster, Greenpeace Sees Cleanup Failure] By Aaron Clark; Bloomberg Green; 4 March 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html Fukushima Accident Updates (Blog)] Hiroshima Syndrome<br />
<br />
== anti-nuclear ==<br />
* [https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/letter-from-greenpeace-to-rishi-sunak-mp-chancellor-of-the-exchequer/ Letter from Greenpeace to Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer] 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Sovacool ===<br />
* [https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-power-slow-action-climate-change/ Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change]<br />
<br />
* [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/05/nuclear-not-an-effective-low-carbon-option/ Nuclear ‘not an effective low carbon option’ ] OCTOBER 5, 2020 MARK HUTCHINS; PV magazine<br />
<br />
=== Helen Caldicott & Kate Brown ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future - Kate Brown, Shellenberger & Dr. Caldicott] YouTube; Mar 2019<br />
<br />
== renewables ==<br />
=== IEA ===<br />
* [https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 Renewables 2020 - Analysis and forecast to 2025] IEA; Nov 2020<br />
<br />
=== biomass ===<br />
* [https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/02/11/time-end-subsidies-burning-wood-forests/ It’s time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests] Jean-Pascal van Ypersele; Climate Home News; 11/02/2021<br />
<br />
* [https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-pacific-bioenergy-old-growth-logging-wood-pellets/ B.C. gives Pacific BioEnergy green light to log rare inland rainforest for wood pellets] Matt Simmons; The Narwhal; 9 Oct 2020<br />
{{q|Prince George plant will grind ancient cedar and hemlock into pellets to be burned for fuel overseas, destroying forest that’s home to endangered caribou and vast stores of carbon}}<br />
<br />
=== hydro ===<br />
* [https://www.pnas.org/content/115/47/11891 Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century] Moran et al; PNAS; Nov 2020<br />
{{Q|'''Abstract'''<br />
Hydropower has been the leading source of renewable energy across the world, accounting for up to 71% of this supply as of 2016. This capacity was built up in North America and Europe between 1920 and 1970 when thousands of dams were built. Big dams stopped being built in developed nations, because the best sites for dams were already developed and environmental and social concerns made the costs unacceptable. Nowadays, more dams are being removed in North America and Europe than are being built. The hydropower industry moved to building dams in the developing world and since the 1970s, began to build even larger hydropower dams along the Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River Basin, and the Congo River Basin. The same problems are being repeated: disrupting river ecology, deforestation, losing aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, releasing substantial greenhouse gases, displacing thousands of people, and altering people’s livelihoods plus affecting the food systems, water quality, and agriculture near them. This paper studies the proliferation of large dams in developing countries and the importance of incorporating climate change into considerations of whether to build a dam along with some of the governance and compensation challenges. We also examine the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs along with changes that are needed to address the legitimate social and environmental concerns of people living in areas where dams are planned. Finally, we propose innovative solutions that can move hydropower toward sustainable practices together with solar, wind, and other renewable sources.}}<br />
<br />
*[https://www.ntd.com/chinas-three-gorges-dam-could-collapse-expert-warns_478009.html China’s Three Gorges Dam Could Collapse, Expert Warns]<br />
<br />
=== solar ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/26/floating-solar-on-pumped-hydro-part-2-better-efficiency-but-more-challenging-engineering/ Floating Solar On Pumped Hydro, Part 2: Better Efficiency, But More Challenging Engineering] cleantechnica; 2019<br />
<br />
==== Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour ====<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-xinjiang-solar/ Bloomberg]<br />
<br />
==== waste ====<br />
* [https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power The Dark Side of Solar Power] Harvard Business Review; June 2021<br />
{{Q|Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to landfill (along with equally hard-to-recycle wind turbines). Regulators and industry players need to start improving the economics and scale of recycling capabilities before the avalanche of solar panels hits}}<br />
<br />
==== concentrating ====<br />
* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html Secretive energy startup backed by Bill Gates achieves solar breakthrough] CNN ; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius. <br />
<br />
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.}}<br />
<br />
==== artificial photosynthesis ====<br />
* [https://www.sciencealert.com/new-artificial-photosynthesis-device-creates-energy-from-co2-water-and-sunlight Breakthrough in Artificial Photosynthesis Lets Scientists Store The Sun's Energy as Fuel] DAVID NIELD; Science Alert; 29 AUGUST 2020<br />
{{Quote|The new device takes CO2, water, and sunlight as its ingredients, and then produces oxygen and formic acid that can be stored as fuel. The acid can either be used directly or converted into hydrogen – another potentially clean energy fuel.<br />
<br />
Key to the innovation is the photosheet - or photocatalyst sheet - which uses special semiconductor powders that enable electron interactions and oxidation to occur when sunlight hits the sheet in water, with the help of a cobalt-based catalyst.}}<br />
<br />
==== EROEI ====<br />
* [https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/ The Real EROI of Photovoltaic Systems: Professor Hall Weighs in] May 2016<br />
<br />
==== ecological impacts ====<br />
*[https://phys.org/news/2021-04-ten-ways-bees-benefit-solar.html Ten ways to ensure bees benefit from the solar power boom] Lancaster University<br />
{{Quote|Researchers assessing the impact of solar energy development across Europe have come up with ten ways in which the expansion of solar can be shaped to ensure pollinators benefit.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BasinRange/status/1372053499316342784 thread] by Basin and Range Watch @BasinRange on Twitter with photo<br />
{{Quote|Desert tortoise fence surrounds the 3,000 acre Yellow Pine Solar project, South Pahrump Valley, in the fragile Mojave Desert. Everything inside the fence will be bulldozed. These were your public lands.}}<br />
<br />
=== wind ===<br />
* [https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676 German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles] DW; 2019<br />
{{Quote|The German Economy Ministry has held a summit to discuss a dramatic slowdown in the wind energy sector that's threatening agreed climate goals. The problems are due to policy mistakes and growing public resistance.}}<br />
<br />
==== offshore longevity ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/business/status/1388445620327927810 Bloomberg/Twitter]<br />
{{quote|The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms will need to spend about $490 million fixing cables that have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed}}<br />
** [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-29/wind-power-giant-s-profit-hit-by-rocks-on-the-seabed Wind Power Giant’s Profit Hit by Rocks on the Seabed] By Will Mathis; Bloomberg; 29 April 2021<br />
{{quote| <br />
* Wind developer Orsted found its subsea cables scraped by rocks<br />
* Developer will spend as much as $490 million on repairs<br />
The world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms Orsted A/S has found that some of its cables connecting to wind farms have been damaged by scraping against rocks on the seabed and will need to spend as much as 3 billion Danish kroner ($489 million) to fix them. It’s part of the growing pains for the offshore wind industry that’s become one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-25/waves-and-seaweed-challenge-france-s-plans-for-floating-wind Waves and Seaweed Challenge France’s Plans for Floating Wind] Bloomberg Green; May 2021<br />
{{Q|Floating wind energy projects could open up vast areas of the world’s oceans to produce carbon-free power. But developers must first solve two key technical problems, according to France’s electric-grid operator.<br />
<br />
Sea swell can cause vibrations that harm floating-substation equipment, while cables can be damaged by a buildup of shells and seaweed}}<br />
<br />
==== recycling ====<br />
* [https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102458629/DTU_INTL_ENERGY_REP_2014_WIND_91_97.pdf Recycling of wind turbines] Andersen, Per Dannemand; Bonou, Alexandra; Beauson, Justine; Brøndsted, Povl; Published in: DTU International Energy Report 2014<br />
* [https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/27/company-expands-wind-turbine-recycling-operation/ Company expands wind turbine recycling operation] Plastics Recycling Update; Published: March 27, 2019 Updated: January 28, 2020; by Jared Paben<br />
* [https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/how-can-wind-turbine-blades-be-recycled How can wind turbine blades be recycled?] Veolia; Posted on 07 June 2018.<br />
* [https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/new-project-to-advance-wind-turbine-blade-recycling New Project to Advance Wind Turbine Blade Recycling] BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE 07-03-2019 06:54:47<br />
* [https://energynews.us/2020/02/20/wind-turbine-blade-recycler-trying-to-fit-the-pieces-together-at-iowa-factory/ Wind turbine blade recycler trying to fit the pieces together at Iowa factory] Energy News Network; Feb 2020<br />
* [https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/ge-announces-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-contract-20201208 GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia] Tuesday, 08 December 2020<br />
{{Quote|Veolia will process the blades for use as a raw material for cement, utilsing a cement kiln co-processing technology. VNA has a successful history of supplying repurposed engineered materials to the cement industry. Similar recycling processes in Europe have been proven to be effective at a commercial scale.}}<br />
<br />
==== public opposition ====<br />
* [https://energypost.eu/public-opposition-and-grid-integration-costs-the-two-limiting-factors-for-wind/ Public opposition and grid integration costs: the two limiting factors for Wind?] April 7, 2021 by Schalk Cloete<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Are we heading for an over-reliance on wind? With wind generation costs continuing to drop dramatically, Schalk Cloete takes a data-driven look at the obstacles wind will face as its contribution to the global energy mix (a little over 2% today) keeps rising. In the main, it is grid integration and public opposition to very visible turbines – and they are related. Putting turbines out of sight and offshore will increase transmission costs. And the system complexity of integrating new power sources into the grid will add costs that early-stage wind (and solar) have not yet faced. Cloete has modelled different technology mixes – including nuclear, CCS and hydrogen – and assigned a range of different possible costs to uncover what the energy mix and total system cost scenarios can look like. Depending on the fortunes of each technology, the plateau for wind may come sooner than its proponents believe. Cloete says wind’s weakness – that its remote location will increase its transmission costs – should be more acknowledged. He also urges policy makers to be tech neutral in their planning, so that the potential of nuclear and carbon capture is acknowledged too.<br />
<br />
Levelised costs of electricity often dominate the energy and climate debate. Green advocates like to believe that if we only invest enough in wind and solar, the resulting cost reductions will soon put an end to fossil fuels. While this is already a severely oversimplified viewpoint, a single-minded focus on cost makes such simplistic analyses even less useful.<br />
<br />
This article will elaborate on this point by example of two clean energy technologies that face very different non-economic barriers: nuclear and wind.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-51759993 Wind farms: Celebrities oppose 'destructive' plans] BBC; 5 March 2020<br />
<br />
==== bird and bat deaths ====<br />
* [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-theyre-behere.html Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why] by Simon Chapman, The Conversation; Phys.org; June 2017<br />
<br />
==== UK ====<br />
* [https://auroraer.com/media/reaching-40gw-offshore-wind/ REACHING THE UK GOVERNMENT’S TARGET OF 40GW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030 WILL REQUIRE ALMOST £50BN IN INVESTMENT] Aurora energy research; February 6, 2020<br />
<br />
===== Green Park =====<br />
* [https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-02/readings-wind-turbine-how-much-power-does-it-generate-how-does-it-work Reading's wind turbine: How much power does it generate? How does it work?] ITV; March 2021<br />
* [https://www.greenpark.co.uk/wildlife-environment/wind-turbine-visitor-center/ Green Park wind turbine]<br />
<br />
=== saline/fresh water ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue Rivers could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy, thanks to a new ‘blue’ membrane] Robert F. Service; Science Mag; Dec. 4, 2019<br />
{{Quote|Rivers dump some 37,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the oceans every year. This intersection between fresh- and saltwater creates the potential to generate lots of electricity—2.6 terawatts, according to one recent estimate, roughly the amount that can be generated by 2000 nuclear power plants.}}<br />
<br />
=== environmental impacts ===<br />
====biodiversity ====<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5 Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity<br />
Laura J. Sonter, Marie C. Dade, James E. M. Watson & Rick K. Valenta ; Nature Communication; 2020<br />
{{Quote|Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.}}<br />
<br />
=== geothermal ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy Eden Project to start drilling for ‘hot rocks’ to generate geothermal energy] Guardian; Apr 2021<br />
<br />
== energy conversion & storage ==<br />
<br />
*[https://www.volts.wtf/p/long-duration-storage-can-help-clean Long-duration storage can help clean up the electricity grid, but only if it's super cheap] David Roberts; Volts; Jun 9, 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryogenic ===<br />
* [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-store-renewable-energy-try-freezing-air/ To Store Renewable Energy, Try Freezing Air] SciAm; Jan 2020<br />
<br />
=== batteries ===<br />
* [https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/ Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns] IBM; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/a-primer-on-lithium-ion-batteries?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzQwMTYwODgsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYxODU5MjEzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE4NTk1NzM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.E-vpOzr3ww5txQofBiyYO8mKkgFj8uXCOZ7jLxCsJ4Q A primer on lithium-ion batteries: how they work and how they are changing] David Roberts; April 2021<br />
<br />
* [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction] Wired; Aug 2018<br />
<br />
* [https://www.volts.wtf/p/theres-real-long-duration-energy?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDI5OTI5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkyNTE5NzMsIl8iOiJvSnZrbCIsImlhdCI6MTYyODE2MzczNywiZXhwIjoxNjI4MTY3MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.7h97RK_i37USBWQQsvIh-O2IoOOxV0JVV2tgcJQrkUI&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play There's real long-duration energy storage now. Can it find a market?] David Roberts; Volts; SAug 4, 2021<br />
{{qq|Form Energy's "reversible rusting" battery and markets for energy storage<br />
<br />
Cody Hill @cody_a_hill<br />
<br />
Down here on the ground today, in what is presently the worlds best market for storage:<br />
<br />
5 hours maybe has 5% more value than 4 hours<br />
<br />
10 hours has ~1% more value than 8<br />
<br />
100 hours a rounding error vs 24 hours<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades] Hannah Ritchie; Our World in Data; 4 June 2021<br />
<br />
=== V2G ===<br />
* [https://grist.org/energy/your-electric-vehicle-could-become-a-mini-power-plant/ Your electric vehicle could become a mini power plant] Maria Gallucci; Grist; 21 Jun 2021<br />
<br />
=== pumped storage ===<br />
* [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/30/psh-fast-pt-1-us-doe-fast-competition-for-pumped-storage-picks-4-winners/ PSH FAST, Pt 1: US DOE FAST Competition For Pumped Storage Picks 4 Winners] Cleantechnica; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|Pumped storage hydro has far more resource potential than required for a fully decarbonized grid and it’s cheap per megawatt-hour (MWh) of storage. The downside is that it’s slow to build, capital intensive, and heavily regulated right now in the United States. The Department of Energy FAST program aims to change that.}}<br />
<br />
=== hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/features/hydrogen-the-burning-question Hydrogen: The Burning Question] The Chemical Engineer; 2019<br />
{{Q|what effect does injected hydrogen have on furnace, flame and exhaust in natural gas combustion plant?}}<br />
<br />
=== ammonia and hydrogen ===<br />
* [https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lucid-Catalyst-Missing-Link-Report-2020-09-15.pdf Missing Link to a Livable Climate - How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals] Eric Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan, Lucid Catalyst; Sept 2020<br />
{{Q|<br />
* The only known way to address the ‘difficult-to-decarbonize’ economic sectors is with the large-scale use of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels such as ammonia. This can fully decarbonize aviation, shipping, cement, and industry using known and proven technologies. This would be a complement to all those renewables being deployed, not an alternative.<br />
* ...conventional nuclear can deliver clean hydrogen for as low as $2/kg in Asian markets today. We find that a new generation of advanced modular reactors, hereafter referred to as advanced heat sources, with new manufacturing-based delivery models, could deliver hydrogen on a large scale for $1.10/kg, with further cost reductions at scale reaching the target price of $0.90/kg by 2030. This is the only technology that can realistically achieve this low price from electrolysis in the short to medium term. Therefore, for the near term we are referring to advanced modular reactors, but in the longer term, advanced heat sources could also include fusion and high-temperature geothermal. These additional advanced heat sources could be designed as drop-in modules to the production platform architecture described in this report.<br />
<br />
* These advanced heat sources can be built rapidly and at the required scale with a Gigafactory approach to modular construction and manufacturing or in existing world class shipyards.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bunkerspot.com/americas/51441-americas-select-committee-examines-potential-for-hydrogen-and-ammonia-in-shipping AMERICAS: SELECT COMMITTEE EXAMINES POTENTIAL FOR HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA IN SHIPPING] Sept 2020<br />
<br />
=== synthetic fuels: methanation ===<br />
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/zero-carbon-goal-pushes-japan-to-bet-on-century-old-technology Zero-Carbon Goal Pushes Japan to Bet On Century-Old Technology] By Erica Yokoyama and Tsuyoshi Inajima; Bloomberg; 14 April 2021 (pdf saved)<br />
<br />
== land use ==<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969714003829 Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian mountain landscapes over 145 years] Jan Nyssen et al; Science of The Total Environment; 1 July 2014<br />
{{Quote|'''Highlights'''<br />
* We re-photographed 361 landscapes that appear on historical photographs (1868–1994).<br />
* Visible evidence of environmental changes was analyzed through expert rating.<br />
* More trees and conservation structures occur where there is high population density.<br />
* Direct human impacts on the environment override the effects of climate change.<br />
* The northern Ethiopian highlands are greener than at any time in the last 145 years.<br />
}}<br />
** [https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1387374136457154564 thread] George Monbiot; Twitter; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|Since 1868, the population of Ethiopia has risen from 7m to 112m. <br />
An environmental disaster? No. In the study area, land degradation has DECREASED with population growth. More trees, more vegetation, less erosion. Why?<br />
Because the overriding issue, as some of us have been trying to point out for a while, is not population but *policy*. <br />
In 1868, land tenure was feudal, and people and their livestock were driven onto steep slopes and into destructive forms of land use. But since then, there's been land reform, giving people equal shares, followed by policies to exclude livestock from much of the land, replant trees, stop indiscriminate felling and protect soil. The result has been a major improvement in people’s livelihoods AND in land quality.<br />
It’s a remarkable but unsurprising riposte to the false, essentialist and sometimes racist claim that the fundamental environmental problem, which leads inexorably to disaster, is people - often “other people” or “those people” - breeding too much.}}<br />
=== degradation ===<br />
* [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365217257111044101.html Wales Cambrian Mountains degraded - George Monbiot] Twitter<br />
<br />
* [https://earth.org/mangrove-trees-could-disappear-by-2050-if/ Mangrove Forests Could Disappear by 2050 if Emissions Aren’t Cut] Earth.org Jun 2020<br />
<br />
=== restoration ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/18/how-water-is-helping-to-end-the-first-climate-change-war How water is helping to end 'the first climate change war'] Damian Carrington; The Guardian; Dec 2019<br />
{{Quote|The seasonal river that runs by El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, has been transformed by community-built weirs. These slow the flow of the rainy season downpours, spreading water and allowing it to seep into the land. Before, just 150 farmers could make a living here: now, 4,000 work the land by the Sail Gedaim weir.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSPkcpGmflE 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything] Nat Geo; YouTube; Apr 2017<br />
** [https://bambergerranch.org/ Bamberger ranch]<br />
<br />
=== wilding and food production ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/BenGoldsmith/status/1400730583421030401 wilding and food security in Britain] Ben Goldsmith; Twitter; 4th June 2021<br />
{{Q|We are told endlessly that rewilding is an awful idea in Britain, even though we live in one of the most nature impoverished countries in the world, because ambitious nature restoration on farmland will diminish our food security. This is a flawed argument for several reasons.}}<br />
<br />
==== biotechnology ====<br />
* [https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/03/restoration-forest-project-will-showcase-gmo-chestnut-trees/ Restoration forest project will showcase GMO chestnut trees] Cornell Alliance for Science; March 2017<br />
<br />
== food & ag ==<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Environmental impacts of food production] by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser; OWID; First published in January 2020<br />
* [https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food What are the carbon opportunity costs of our food?] by Hannah Ritchie; OWID; March 19, 2021<br />
* [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land] Matthew N. Hayek, Helen Harwatt, William J. Ripple & Nathaniel D. Mueller ; Nature Sustainability; 2021<br />
* [https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/gdpr-policy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodengineeringmag.com%2Farticles%2F89503-life-cycle-analysis-study-suggests-eating-less-meat Life-cycle analysis study suggests eating less meat] Food Engineering Magazine; July 2012<br />
<br />
=== Soil Carbon Sequestration - Iida Ruishalme ===<br />
* [https://www.facebook.com/groups/european.ecomodernists/?multi_permalinks=499866021196466 Soil Carbon Sequestration] Facebook<br />
<br />
=== Organic ===<br />
* [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468202019300919 Limitations in the evidential basis supporting health benefits from a decreased exposure to pesticides through organic food consumption] Current Opinion in Toxicology; Feb 2020<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* One of the most rapidly growing sectors in the food industry is organic agriculture.<br />
* This is based on the belief that organic diets protect from pesticide toxic effects.<br />
* A shift towards an organic diet reduces the consumer's exposure to pesticides.<br />
* Insufficient evidences exist to conclude that this can have health benefits.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== paraquat ===<br />
* [https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/03/24/paraquat-papers-syngenta-toxic-pesticide-gramoxone/ The Paraquat Papers: How Syngenta’s bad science helped keep the world’s deadliest weedkiller on the market]<br />
<br />
=== biotech / GM ===<br />
* [https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/12/03/how-make-money-spreading-anti-gmo-propaganda-14436 How To Make Money By Spreading Anti-GMO Propaganda] american Council on Science and Health; Dec 2019<br />
<br />
* [https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html The True Story About Who Destroyed a Genetically Modified Rice Crop] MARK LYNAS; Slate; AUG 26, 2013<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032876X Glyphosate and its toxicology: A scientometric review]<br />
<br />
=== waste heat ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-53178463 Hi-tech greenhouses to supply UK stores with food] BBC<br />
{{Quote|Waste heat generated from water treatment plants will be harnessed and used to keep commercial greenhouses warm in the UK in a world-first.}}<br />
<br />
=== Marine - Seaspiracy ===<br />
==== racism ====<br />
* [https://twitter.com/jean8rum/status/1379910092900892673 Jean Utzurrum] @jean8rum Twitter<br />
<br />
== cities ==<br />
* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2020.1771696 How Much State and How Much Market? Comparing Social Housing in Berlin and Vienna] Susanne Marquardt & Daniel Glaser; Published online: 05 Jun 2020<br />
<br />
* [https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/20/san-francisco-developer-plans-car-less-community.html San Francisco developer plans car-less community in Tempe]<br />
<br />
* [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/18051331.need-housing-growth-oxfordshire/ Why do we need housing growth in Oxfordshire?] Oxford Mail<br />
<br />
* [https://www.brookings.edu/research/gentle-density-can-save-our-neighborhoods/ “Gentle” density can save our neighborhoods] Alex Baca, Patrick McAnaney, and Jenny Schuetz; Brookings; December 4, 2019<br />
<br />
=== building ===<br />
*[https://schoolsweek.co.uk/passivhaus-schools-claim-to-reduce-energy-costs-by-80-per-cent/ Passivhaus schools claim to reduce energy costs by 80 per cent]<br />
<br />
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00038628.2019.1606776 Thermal performance exploration of 3D printed cob]<br />
<br />
== action ==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/03/what-stops-scientists Science can help us adapt to climate change, but first we have to admit it is happening] Guardian; Jan 2020<br />
: Social barriers<br />
<br />
=== economic action ===<br />
* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/09/07/managers-of-40-trillion-make-plans-to-decarbonize-the-world/ Managers Of $40 Trillion Make Plans To Decarbonize The World] James Conca; Forbes; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a European group of global pension funds and investment managers, totaling over 1,200 members in 16 countries, who control more than $40 trillion in assets (€33 trillion). They have drawn up a plan to cut carbon in their portfolios to net-zero and hope other investors will join them.<br />
<br />
The group’s mission is to mobilize capital for a global low-carbon transition and to ensure resiliency of investments and markets in the face of the changes, including the changing climate itself. They provide asset managers with a set of recommended actions, policies, collaborations, measures and methods to help them meet the net-zero goal by 2050 in an effort to address climate change. Their framework was developed with more than 70 funds worldwide.}}<br />
<br />
=== behaviour change===<br />
<br />
* [https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/ Cambridge Sustainability Commission report on Scaling Behaviour Change]<br />
Posted on 13 April 2021<br />
{{Quote|<br />
A major new report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change calls on policy makers to target the UK’s polluter elite to trigger a shift to more sustainable behaviour, and provide affordable, available low-carbon alternatives to poorer households.<br />
<br />
While efforts to address the climate crisis will require us all to change our behaviours, the responsibility is not evenly shared. Evidence reviewed by the Cambridge Commission shows that over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== activism ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change Individual and political action on climate change] Wikipedia<br />
* [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pro-nuclear-energy-protesters-rally-against-greenpeace-in-paris-idUSKBN2402QN Pro-nuclear energy protesters rally against Greenpeace in Paris] reuters; June 2020<br />
<br />
==== climate restoration ====<br />
* [https://www.worldward.org/ Worldward]<br />
** [https://grist.org/climate/can-we-restore-the-climate-these-young-activists-want-us-to-try/ What if net-zero isn’t enough? Inside the push to ‘restore’ the climate.] Grist; Dec 2020<br />
<br />
==== conservatives ====<br />
<br />
* [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz4pb3/british-conservation-alliance-climate-change The Political Group Trying Rebrand Climate Activism as Right-Wing] Vice; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|The British Conservation Alliance is a new political organisation led by young libertarians promising to break the left’s monopoly on green issues. Its website says it is “empowering students to engage in the principles of pro-market environmentalism and conservative conservation” and it talks of “ecopreneurship”, saying: “the market is continuously innovating and rewarding ecopreneurs who develop environmentally conscious business models and initiatives.”}}<br />
<br />
==== legislative ====<br />
<br />
===== UK CEE Bill =====<br />
* [https://www.ceebill.uk/bill The CEE bill in depth]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The drafting of the CEE bill gratefully acknowledges the expert contributions and insights of:<br />
<br />
* Professor Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester, Energy and Climate Change)<br />
* Dr. James Dyke (University of Exeter, Global Systems)<br />
* Dr. Charlie Gardner (University of Kent, Conservation Science)<br />
* Prof. Dave Goulson (University of Sussex, Biology - Evolution, Behaviour and Environment)<br />
* Prof. Tim Jackson (University of Surrey, Ecological Economist)<br />
* Dr. Joeri Rogelj (IPCC report lead author, Grantham Institute for Climate Change)<br />
* Prof. Graham Smith (University of Westminster, Centre for the Study of Democracy)<br />
* Mr. Robert Whitfield (former Senior Vice President of Airbus Industrie)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqp4UW1bDPrYFSAfEXnhgXMB7UuEJtecSvmP2E6v95Q/edit CEE Bill executive summary]<br />
<br />
* [https://theconversation.com/the-new-uk-climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill-is-exactly-what-we-need-heres-why-145522 The new UK Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is exactly what we need – here’s why] The Conversation; Sept 2020<br />
{{Quote|The “Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill” would significantly expand the remit and scope of the Climate Change Act 2008, assigning new duties to government, parliament and the advisory Committee on Climate Change to enact a strategy that meets more ambitious targets for both climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as stronger criteria of justice, responsibility and safety.<br />
<br />
A new citizens’ assembly would put people at the heart of that strategy through a process of deliberative democracy informed by expert advice. The bill, recently tabled in parliament as a private member’s bill by a coalition of MPs from six political parties, now needs to gain the support of a majority of MPs to be passed into law.}}<br />
<br />
== sewage to fertiliser ==<br />
* [https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/in-king-county-washington-human-waste-is-a-climate-solution/ In King County, Washington, human waste is a climate solution] Yale; Nov 2019<br />
{{Quote|Using treated waste as an agricultural fertilizer has several climate-related benefits.}}<br />
<br />
== science ==<br />
* [https://www.askforevidence.org/index Ask For Evidence ]<br />
<br />
=== science communication ===<br />
* [https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/09/21/yanss-189-why-we-must-use-social-science-to-fight-misinformation-partisanship-conspiratorial-thinking-and-general-confusion-when-we-finally-have-a-vaccine-for-covid-19/ YANSS 189 – Why we must use social science to fight misinformation, partisanship, conspiratorial thinking, and general confusion when we finally have a vaccine for COVID-19] You Are Not So Smart<br />
<br />
* [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/ Climate Emergency Declaration] [https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf pdf]|[[media:DontMentionTheEmergency2018.pdf|copy]]<br />
: Australian, generally good but solutions denialist<br />
<br />
* [https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/the-emergency/part-2/ Part 2: It’s getting hot in here… What’s already happening to our planet as a result of global heating and why?] Extinction Rebellion<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTeHCeXVkA How to make the world add up] Tim Harford & David Speigelhalter; YouTube; March 2021<br />
{{Quote|Economist, journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford speaks to David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, about his recent book, How to make the world add up: Ten rules for thinking differently about numbers. He describes the book as is "my effort to help you think clearly about the numbers that swirl all around us" - a vital discussion in an age of so much conflicting information.}}<br />
<br />
=== science communication, Deep Adaptation, and mental health ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/niranjanajit/status/1387373159435829249?s=21 thread] Ajit Niranjan on Twitter, citing<br />
** [https://www.dw.com/en/climate-collapse-civilization-societal-breakdown-misinformation-mental-health/a-56848557 Climate collapse: The people who fear society is doomed] DW; April 2021<br />
{{Quote|No scientific study has found that climate change is likely to wipe out civilization, but for many even the possibility is terrifying enough to upend their lives.}}<br />
{{Quote|<br />
two reasons this matters now:<br />
<br />
1) it worsens the mental health burden both on people relatively removed from the effects of climate change as well those already living with more extreme weather — particularly cilmate-aware young people across the global south<br />
<br />
2) it affects* climate action, inspiring some people to act more urgently but leaving others feeling hopeless, even if the people exaggerating are themselves fighting climate change and don't want anybody to give up<br />
<br />
*the net effect is not clear<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Transport ==<br />
* [http://www.enmanreg.org/charging/ ULTRA-RAPID CHARGING] Vilnis Vesma; EnMan; 2019<br />
{{Quote|“StoreDot and BP present world-first full charge of an electric vehicle in five minutes” runs the headline on this news item from BP which actually talks about an electric scooter. The Storedot website is a bit more gung-ho about their new battery technology, which they think would enable a 5-minute full recharge of an electric car with 300 mile range. Really?}}<br />
<br />
=== air ===<br />
* [https://www.ted.com/talks/cory_combs_the_future_of_flying_is_electrifying The future of flying is electrifying] TED<br />
{{Quote|aviation entrepreneur and TED Fellow Cory Combs lays out how electric aircraft could make flying cleaner, quieter and more affordable -- and shares his work on Electric EEL, the largest hybrid-electric plane ever to fly.}}<br />
<br />
* [https://twitter.com/ProfRayWills/status/1411569845305430016 Eviation - Alice electric plane] Prof Ray Willis; Twitter; July 2021<br />
<br />
=== nuclear powered ship ===<br />
* [https://medium.com/generation-atomic/why-a-superyacht-designer-is-building-an-amazing-nuclear-powered-science-vessel-2f9af74fd278 Why A Superyacht Designer Is Building An Amazing Nuclear-Powered Science Vessel]<br />
<br />
== MISC ==<br />
<br />
=== carbon mapping satellite ===<br />
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56762972 Carbon Mapper satellite network to find super-emitters] BBC; April 2021<br />
<br />
=== fashion industry ===<br />
* [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/03/fast-fashion-devastates-environment The Environmental Cost Of Fashion]<br />
<br />
=== EU sustainable taxonomy ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1384160773060976642 Twitter]<br />
* [https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/interview/mep-canfin-the-french-hard-line-on-nuclear-is-a-dead-end/ MEP Canfin: The French hard line on nuclear is a dead end] By Frédéric Simon; EURACTIV.com; 19 Apr 2021<br />
<br />
=== Technology Readiness Level ===<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21bsk2tXbE Technology Readiness Levels and Renewable Energy Technologies] Engineering with Rosie; YouTube; 9 Dec 2020<br />
* [https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/how-mature-are-renewable-energy-technologies-87e8aa465be7 How Mature are Renewable Energy Technologies?] Rosemary Barnes; Medium; Jan 2021<br />
<br />
=== cryptocurrencies and NFTs ===<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/29/non-fungible-tokens-digital-fad-planet-nfts-artists-fossil-fuels Non-fungible tokens aren’t a harmless digital fad – they’re a disaster for our planet] Adam Greenfield; Guardian comment is free; May 2021<br />
<br />
=== materials requirements ===<br />
* [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050] Natural History Museum; June 2019<br />
{{Q|A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change<br />
<br />
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.<br />
<br />
A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.}}<br />
<br />
=== relative risk ===<br />
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak] Wikipedia - Organic beansprouts<br />
{{Q|In all, 3,950 people were affected and 53 died}}<br />
<br />
=== glyphosate ===<br />
* [https://twitter.com/Thoughtscapism/status/1404903781066756099 Iida Ruishalme on EU classification] Twitter</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=HP1000&diff=5498HP10002022-08-17T08:51:56Z<p>Sisussman: /* Design */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: HP1000]]<br />
[[Category: Nuclear energy in the UK]]<br />
<br />
The Hualong One (also known as Hualong 1 and HPR1000) is a [[PWR|pressurized water nuclear reactor]] with features merged from reactors made by the China General Nuclear Power Group (CGNPG) and the China National Nuclear Corporation, and originally derived from a French design (which was itself derived from a US Westinghouse design).<br />
<br />
'''Hualong One merged design''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualong_One Wikipedia] <br />
<br />
'''[http://euanmearns.com/chinas-hualong-1-passes-the-first-stage-of-the-uk-gda-process China’s “Hualong 1” passes the first stage of the UK GDA process]''' by Euan Mearns & Andy Dawson; [[Energy Matters]]; 24 Nov 2017<br />
{{QuoteBox|<br />
With little fanfare last week, the Chinese designed HPR1000 (previously Hualong-1<ref>The design is still also known as Hualang 1</ref>), pressurised water reactor, cleared the first of four stages in the General Design Assessment (GDA) administered by the UK Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR). China General Nuclear (CGN) proposes to build 2 reactors of this design at the Bradwell site in England, in partnership with French state-owned EDF that currently operates all UK commercial reactors.<br />
<br />
This guest post by Andy Dawson gives a preliminary overview of the design focussing on safety systems.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''UK HPR1000, Generic Design Assessment (GDA) website''' [http://www.ukhpr1000.co.uk/] <br />
{{QuoteBox|<br />
CGN and EDF, through their joint venture company General Nuclear System Limited, commenced the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process for the UK HPR1000 in January 2017.<br />
<br />
General Nuclear System has been established to act on behalf of the three joint requesting parties (CGN, EDF and General Nuclear International) to implement the Generic Design Assessment of the UK HPR1000 reactor; more information on the each of these companies and the structure of General Nuclear System can be found on the about us page. For practical purposes, General Nuclear System is referred to as the ‘UK HPR1000 GDA Requesting Party’.<br />
<br />
This website has been set up to publish information on the HPR1000 nuclear reactor design that is currently undergoing assessment by the UK nuclear regulators – the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency. You can find out more information about the process on our GDA process page.<br />
<br />
On 15 November 2018, the regulators concluded that the information submitted by General Nuclear System during Step 2 was sufficient to allow the start of Step 3. As part of the GDA process we continue to invite you to comment on the HPR1000 reactor design and the regulatory submissions that we make to the regulators.<br />
<br />
Comments received by 25 October 2019 have been considered as part of the ONR’s assessment of Step 3. The Environment Agency will continue to accept comments for this step after this date and will be consulting on its findings so far, in due course. More information is available on the EA website.<br />
<br />
Within this site you will find information on the HPR1000 reactor technology, design, safety and environmental features. You can also access the range of technical documents that will be submitted to the regulators throughout the process in our document library.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
"'''UK HPR1000 moves to final design assessment stage'''", World Nuclear News [https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-HPR1000-moves-to-final-design-assessment-stage], 13 Feb 2020<br />
{{QuoteBox|<br />
The UK HPR1000 is the Hualong One design that General Nuclear Services - a subsidiary of EDF and China General Nuclear - proposes to use at a prospective new nuclear power plant in Bradwell, England.<br />
<br />
"The objective for GDA is to provide confidence that the proposed design is capable of being constructed, operated and decommissioned in accordance with the standards of safety, security and environmental protection required in Great Britain," Ana Gomez-Cobo, ONR’s head of UK HPR1000 regulation, said.<br />
<br />
"Our assessment to date has not identified any fundamental safety or security shortfalls that would prevent us issuing a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) for the UK HPR1000 design. However, we have identified a number of areas for which further substantiation is needed from the Requesting Party; these have been captured as Regulatory Observations. Although progress so far is encouraging, a lot of work by the Requesting Party is still required. We will continue to rigorously assess safety and security submissions throughout Step 4 of GDA."<br />
<br />
The GDA is a voluntary process for reactor vendors - it is policy rather than law - but it is a government expectation for all new-build projects in the UK. In January 2017, the British government formally requested regulators start the process for the UK HPR1000. The regulators, who have said they aim to complete the GDA of the UK HPR1000 in late 2021, have published a report summarising their Step 3 assessment here.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Design ==<br />
{{Quote|<br />
The starting point for this commentary is that this is a VERY conventional Light Water Reactor design, with a design ancestry going back to a highly successful 1970s Westinghouse Pressurised Water Reactor with evolutionary change thereafter. The direct precursor is the 900MW Framatome design (based on licensed Westinghouse technology) built at Daya Bay in the 1980s. There have then been several further design evolutions driven by the Chinese themselves, resulting in Hualong-1, several of which are in build in China and in Pakistan. The baseline plant for the UK GDA entry is Fanggchengang 3, currently about 2 years into build (inset image), and due on line in 2022. From a western perspective, this may appear unpronounceable. I can’t comment on why they didn’t select the other potential reference plant, which is running slightly earlier – at Fuqing.<br />
<br />
It’s not a radical leap in the way that the AP1000 attempted simplification of the PWR concept, or that the EPR tried to address potential regulatory issues by delivering massive redundancy on key systems.<br />
<br />
Gross electrical output is 1180MW – although not stated, net output is likely to be in the 1130-1160MW range, after losses to powering internal systems. Thermal output is 3150MW, giving an overall efficiency of 37% – respectable for a PWR, and entirely comparable with AP1000 and EPR, and somewhat better than ABWR. The standard refuelling cycle is 12-18 months.<br />
<br />
The core is again, directly reflective of Westinghouse design practice; it consists of 177 fuel assemblies, each consisting of a 17×17 matrix of fuel pins. Cladding is conventional zircalloy (of which more later).These have been lengthened from the precursor designs to reduce linear power density, and improve neutron economy. The core design makes extensive use of “burnable poisons” to manage the neutron flux distribution, to this same end.<br />
<br />
However, unlike most recent designs, it doesn’t appear that the core is surrounded by a cylindrical steel neutron reflector. This means that the fuel usage (aka “burn-up” is somewhat less efficient that in designs like the EPR. EPR is claimed to be capable of running to a burn-up of 60GWd/t (gigawatt-days per ton) against HPR1000s 47GWd/t.<br />
This may also have some relationship to another striking feature; the entire main Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) is produced as a single forging, as opposed to the mixed forging/welding of other designs. This should serve to significantly improve the fracture mechanics of the RPV, and since neutron embrittlement tends to be more of an issue at welds than in forged metal, is probably integral to justifying the claimed design life of 60 years.<br />
<br />
It’s a “three-loop” design, another design characteristic directly inherited from its Westinghouse (and later Framatome) precursors. That means it has three Steam Generators (SG), each with a single circulating pump. In this area, the other designs with, or in process for UK GDA differ. ABWR has, of course, no steam generators at all (steam raising takes place directly in the RPV). AP1000 has just two large SGs, with a single hot line from the reactor and a pair of cold return legs for each SG with a circulating pump for each cold leg mounted integrally with the SG. EP1000 has four SGs, with a dedicated pump for each.<br />
<br />
Externally, it seems to be a compact unit, in appearance very similar to the stations familiar to anyone who’s spent time in France. It has a typical modern “dual containment” design, with an outer reinforced concrete “shield wall” providing protection against missile or aircraft impact, and an inner pre-stressed concrete pressure bearing “true” containment.<br />
<br />
''[http://euanmearns.com/chinas-hualong-1-passes-the-first-stage-of-the-uk-gda-process/ more ...]''<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{| style="text-align:center;width: 100%;"<br />
|-<br />
| style="width:65%" | [[File:Timelapse constuction of Fuqing Hualong One.mp4 | left | 800px]]<br />
| {{ResponsiveImage | [[File:HPR1000, reactor coolant system.png]]}}<br />
|-<br />
| The time-lapse video above (also on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOApz5U8R5s YouTube]) shows construction of the first of two Hualong One reactors at China's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuqing_Nuclear_Power_Plant Fuqing nuclear power plant], alongside four CPR-1000 reactors, from which the HP1000 design is derived. <br />
| Primary coolant system showing reactor pressure vessel (red), steam generators (purple), pressuriser (blue), and pumps (green) in the three coolant loop Hualong One design]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The video starts with construction of the domed containment vessel followed by:<br />
* 0'40" positioning one of the three steam generators (shown purple in the diagram above right), <br />
* 0'46" the reactor pressure vessel (red), <br />
* 0'54" the pressuriser (blue).<br />
* 1'11" fitting the top cover of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine steam turbine]. This is in the turbine hall, outside the containment vessel in which all the previous components shown are located.<br />
* 1'15" loading of fuel bundles into the reactor.<br />
* 1'19" synchronising the power station and connecting it to the grid.<br />
<br />
== Proposed UK build ==<br />
<br />
There is a proposal to build a twin HPR1000 power station at Bradwell in Essex, alongside the now decommissioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_nuclear_power_station Bradwell A] [[Magnox]] power station.<br />
<br />
The new station would be built by a consortium of [[CGN]] and [[EDF]], as a joint venture company called General Nuclear System Limited.<ref><br />
[http://www.ukhpr1000.co.uk/about-us/ General Nuclear System: About Us]<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
Information about the project, including its progress through the UK's Generic Design Assessment process, is on the company's [http://www.ukhpr1000.co.uk/ website].<br />
{{refs}}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=100%25_renewables&diff=5497100% renewables2022-08-04T00:00:57Z<p>Sisussman: /* Greenpeace */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 2]] <br />
[[Category: 100% renewables]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
There are various claims that individual countries, or even the whole world, could obtain all their electricity - or even their whole energy supplies - from various combinations of low-carbon "renewable" sources, excluding nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and, usually, biomass. Reasons given for excluding nuclear energy range from general unquantified concerns about "safety", claims that nuclear is not a low-carbon source, and assertion that use of nuclear energy will lead to nuclear war.<br />
<br />
All proposed scenarios depend heavily on intermittent sources of renewable energy and can be categorised by how they propose to try to solve the problem of matching intermittent supplies to demand, and to what extent they quantify the measures they propose to do this. At one extreme Greenpeace based its 2012 [[#Greenpeace|energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution]] on an assumption that the IT industry would somehow come up with a way of making demand match supply. At the other extreme [[#Zero Carbon Britain|Zero Carbon Britain]] offers a detailed, quantified plan based on converting excess intermittent electricity to storable chemical fuels. Between these extremes are proposals which depend on more or less plausible combinations of very long distance transmission of huge amounts of energy, prodigious amounts of storage and/or dispatchable hydro.<br />
<br />
Few of these proposals have been published in the scientific literature or by recognised expert bodies. Of those which have, and which have been examined by the IPCC and other experts, none has been found to be generally satisfactory.<br />
<br />
== Jacobson et al ==<br />
<br />
The best-known proponent of what he calls "100% WWS" (100% Wind, Water and Sun) is [[Mark Z. Jacobson]].<br />
Jacobson is a Professor at Stanford University and a recognised expert on the effects on climate of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol aerosols] - fine solid particles or liquid droplets suspended in the atmosphere.<br />
<br />
Jacobson has in recent years advocated 100% renewables energy scenarios for the United States and, later, worldwide. His proposals have been enthusiastically received by politicians, celebrities and environmental organisations, but widely criticised by energy experts and commentators. Most notoriously when Renewables expert Christopher Clack and 20 others published a paper criticising and rebutting Jacobson's claims Jacobson responded by suing the National Academy of Sciences for publishing the paper, and the Clack - the only author without institutional backing - personally for $10Million.<br />
<br />
Jacobson rejects nuclear energy partly because he claims that expanding nuclear energy will inevitably lead to nuclear war causing cities to burn, releasing CO2.<br />
<br />
== Breyer / Lappeenranta University of Technology ==<br />
<br />
Another 100% renewables plan is by Christian Breyer and colleages at the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland.<br />
[[Breyer-LUT]]<br />
<br />
== Zero Carbon Britain (CAT) ==<br />
<br />
The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT)'s [http://zerocarbonbritain.org/ Zero Carbon Britain] includes a plan for producing reliable electricity supplies using intermittent renewables, converting excess electricity into methane which can be stored and converted back into electricity when needed.<br />
<br />
== French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME) ==<br />
<br />
French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME)'s [http://www.actu-environnement.com/media/pdf/rapport100pourcentsENR_comite.pdf Vers un mix eléctrique 100% renouvelable en 2050] (and response "[http://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/articles/pdf_files/temoignages/Analyse%20rapport%20ADEME%20tout%20renouvelables_G%20Sapy.pdf Analysis and comments on the report: towards a mix 100% renewables in 2050]" - in French).<br />
<br />
=== Commentary & criticism of ZCB, ADEME etc ===<br />
Critical analysis of ADEME and CAT/ZCB scenarios with particular reference to energy storage in: [http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-storage-and-power-to-methane/ Renewable Energy Storage and Power-To-Methane] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters blog; 25 Jun 2015<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-renewables-future-a-summary-of-findings/ The Renewables Future – A Summary of Findings] Roger Andrews; 13 Aug 2015<br />
<br />
== Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill: Australia ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512002169 Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market] Ben Elliston, Mark Diesendorf, Iain MacGill<br />
<br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987376/dispelling_the_nuclear_baseload_myth_nothing_renewables_cant_do_better.html Dispelling the nuclear 'baseload' myth: nothing renewables can't do better!] Mark Diesendorf; The Ecologist; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: The main claim used to justify nuclear is that it's the only low carbon power source that can supply 'reliable, baseload electricity', writes Mark Diesendorf - unlike wind and solar. But not only can renewables supply baseload power, they can do something far more valuable: supply power flexibly according to demand. Now nuclear power really is redundant.<br />
<br />
=== Commentary & criticism of Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill ===<br />
<br />
[http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/06/02/critique-100pc-renewables-edm/ Critique of the proposal for 100% renewable energy electricity supply in Australia] Dr Ted Trainer; Brave New Climate blog; 2 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== Elliston and Riesz ==<br />
<br />
[http://ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/PES%20APPEEC%202015%20-%20Elliston-Riesz-NearSolutions-2015-07-14a.pdf Future high renewable electricity scenarios – Insights from mapping the diversity of near least cost portfolios] B. Elliston, J. Riesz<br />
: This paper reports on future electricity generation scenarios modelled using NEMO, a model that applies a genetic algorithm to optimise a mix of simulated generators to meet hourly demand profiles, to the required reliability standard, at lowest overall industry cost. The modelling examined the least and near least cost technology portfolios for a scenario that limited emissions to approximately one quarter of those from the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) at present. It was found that all the near least cost solutions (within 15% of the least cost solution) involved wind capacity in the range of 31-51 GW, with 98.8% of these near least cost portfolios having at least 35 GW of wind installed. In contrast, the near least cost solutions consistently involved much lower quantities of PV, with 90% of the near least cost portfolios having less than 4.9 GW of installed PV capacity. This suggests that policies to promote high levels of wind deployment and grid integration are likely to be important for achieving low cost, low emissions outcomes, while policies to promote significant PV deployment may be less warranted in the absence of cost effective supporting technologies, such as battery storage or significant demand side participation.<br />
: 3/4 of peer-rev'd refs are author's own. Other is BZE which proposes Australia abandon aviation by 2020. - Oscar Archer @ActinideAge<br />
<br />
== Greenpeace / Brainpool ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/essays/2987195/wind_power_with_windgas_is_cheaper_and_greener_than_hinkley_point_c_nuclear_plant.html Wind power with 'windgas' is cheaper and greener than Hinkley Point C nuclear plant] Ecologist<br />
<br />
[http://www.energybrainpool.com/en/services/study-directory/studies-hinkley-point-c.html STUDIES ABOUT THE PLANNED BRITISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HINKLEY POINT C] Energy Brainpool<br />
<br />
*Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: At a lower cost / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (German only)<br />
* Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: A cost comparison / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (English)<br />
* Effects of Hinkley Point C on the german electricity market / Study on behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, July 2015 (German only)<br />
* Level of public funding of Hinkley Point C / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, June 2015 (German only)<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/pressematerial/Hinkley_Point/20160121_Study_Windgas_HPC_English.pdf WIND POWER AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEAR POWER FROM HINKLEY POINT C: A COST COMPARISON] A short analysis commissioned by Greenpeace Energy in Germany<br />
<br />
[http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2014/10/27/what-happens-when-the-wind-doesnt-blow/ What happens when the wind doesn’t blow?] Southern Alliance for Clean Energy blog<br />
<br />
== Greenpeace ==<br />
<br />
[[Media:Greenpeace energy revolution 2012.pdf | energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution]] 2012<br />
{{q|'''Technological opportunities''' Changes to the power system by 2050 will create huge business opportunities for the information, communication and technology (ICT) sector. A smart grid has power supplied from a diverse range of sources and places and it relies on the gathering and analysis of a lot of data. Smart grids require software, hardware and data networks capable of delivering data quickly, and of responding to the information that they contain. Several important ICT players are racing to smarten up energy grids across the globe and hundreds of companies could be involved with smart grids.<br />
<br />
There are numerous IT companies offering products and services to manage and monitor energy. These include IBM, Fujitsu, Google, Microsoft and Cisco. These and other giants of the telecommunications and technology sector have the power to make the grid smarter, and to move us faster towards a clean energy future. Greenpeace has initiated the ‘Cool IT’ campaign to put pressure on the IT sector to make such technologies a reality.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[[Media:Greenpeace energy revolution 2015.pdf | energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution]] 2015<br />
: 5th Edition<br />
* Project manager and lead author Dr. Sven Teske, Greenpeace International<br />
* Global Wind Energy Council steve sawyer<br />
* SolarPowerEurope oliver schäfer<br />
* research & co-authors<br />
* Overall Modelling: dlr, institute of engineering thermodynamics, systems analysis and technology assessment, stuttgart, germany: dr. thomas Pregger, dr. sonja simon, dr. tobias naegler<br />
<br />
[http://www.demandenergyequality.org/2030-energy-scenario.html 2030 Energy Scenarios]<br />
[http://www.mediafire.com/download/r79m6jakihb0ud7/Greenpeace_2030_Public_Sept2015.pdf report]<br />
:In early 2015 we were commissioned by Greenpeace UK to design and test an ambitious, low carbon 2030 energy scenario using the 'Smart Household Energy Demand (SHED) model. It shows that it is possible for the UK's power system to be nearly 90% renewably delivered by 2030, while electrifying 25% of all heating demand - and putting 12.7 million electric cars on the road. But only if we can cut demand for space heating by 57% in the next 15 years - a major challenge.<br />
[http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/09/21/4-ways-the-uk-can-get-almost-all-its-power-from-renewables/ 4 ways the UK can get almost all its power from renewables – without Hinkley]<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Climate-Reports/Energy-Revolution-2015/ Energy Revolution 2015]<br />
<br />
== Skeptical science ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374 Can renewables provide baseload power?] based on <br />
* [http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf DO WE NEED BASE-LOAD POWER STATIONS?] Diesendorf/EnergyScience Coalition<br />
* US National Renewable Energy Laboratory [http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html] [http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/wwsis.html]<br />
* [http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/ Ecofys] [http://www.skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-by-2050.html report],<br />
* [http://www.skepticalscience.com/plan-100-percent-energy-wind-water-solar.html Jacobson & Delucci] [http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf (part 1)]<br />
* [http://www.rethinking2050.eu/fileadmin/documents/ReThinking2050_full_version_final.pdf European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)] * broken link *<br />
* [http://diggy.ruc.dk//bitstream/1800/4386/1/A_RENEWABLE_ENERGY_AND_HYDROGEN_SCENARIO_FOR_NORTHERN_EUROPE.pdf A renewable energy and hydrogen scenario for northern Europe] Sorensen<br />
* [http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/ ZCB]<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544208000959 Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050] Lund and Mathiessen; Energy; 2009 (paywall)<br />
* [http://www.die-klima-allianz.de/wp-content/uploads/uba_2010.pdf Energieziel 2050: 100% Strom auserneuerbaren Quellen] Klaus 2010 (Germany)<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261910003703 How to achieve a 100% RES electricity supply for Portugal?] Krajačić et al; Applied Energy; 2010 - 5th Dubrovnik (hydro, storage - via H2?)<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191000070X The first step towards a 100% renewable energy-system for Ireland] Connolly et al; Applied Energy; 2010 - 5th Dubrovnik ("three different 100% renewable energy-systems were created with each focusing on a different resource: biomass, hydrogen, and electricity. These energy-systems were compared so that the benefits from each could be used to create an ‘optimum’ scenario called combination. Although the results illustrate a potential 100% renewable energy-system for Ireland, they have been obtained based on numerous assumptions. Therefore, these will need to be improved in the future before a serious roadmap can be defined for Ireland’s renewable energy transition")<br />
* [http://www.skepticalscience.com/Zero-Carbon-Australia-2020.html Zero Carbon Australia]<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510001850 A 100% renewable electricity generation system for New Zealand utilising hydro, wind, geothermal and biomass resources] Mason et al.; Energy Policy; 2010 (paywall) (60% hydro 32% ff - plan adds wind, geothermal, uses hydro storage)<br />
<br />
== Krugman ==<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/opinion/planet-on-the-ballot.html Planet on the Ballot] Paul Krugman; NY Times; 29 Feb 2016<br />
<br />
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432262/paul-krugman-renewable-energy-folly-coal-and-fossil-fuels-still-necessary Paul Krugman Needs an Energy Reality Check] Robert Bryce; National Review; 3 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
== Chivers / Two Energy Futures ==<br />
[http://www.twoenergyfutures.net/ Two Energy Futures] ''(links in site don't work - reported to Danny Chivers 03/05/2019)''<br />
<br />
[http://newint.org/blog/2015/08/15/material-requirements/ The stuff problem] Danny Chivers; New Internationalist blog; <br />
:+links<br />
<br />
== Scott Cato / South West England ==<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/2015/04/17/power-to-transform/ Power To Transform] index page<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MSC-SW-Energy-leaflet-V2_pages.pdf Summary leaflet – easy to read pages]<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MSC-SW-Energy-leaflet-V2_spreads.pdf Summary leaflet – full spread]<br />
<br />
: A report commissioned by Molly Scott Cato MEP reveals:<br />
* The region has the renewable energy resources to meet more than 100% of its total energy needs, including replacement of liquid fuels.<br />
* A move to a renewable energy economy has the potential to create 122,000 jobs, an increase in employment of 4.5% across the region.<br />
* One third of energy needs can be met from marine and inshore estuarine tidal energy, with the remaining two thirds from onshore renewables.<br />
* The cost of delivering 100% renewable energy to the region would be around £60 billion. The equivalent cost of delivering 100% of energy needs from nuclear would be around £83 billion.<br />
* Renewables offer opportunities for ushering in a Smart Grid Energy Storage system that would balance the intermittency of some renewable technologies<br />
* Local Smart Grids developed in conjunction with renewable energy resources would reduce the need for large scale pylons and transmission systems. In the South West we can demonstrate just how much better a society powered by clean, green energy would really be. As is so often the case, the right environmental choice will also ensure greater economic justice and help us build flourishing local economies. Locally produced renewable energy will bring a huge economic boost and new jobs and benefit in particular some of our more deprived rural economies. The South West of England has some of the world’s best renewable energy resources, in great abundance and great variety. All that holds us back from a renewable energy revolution and energy security is a failure of political will. Our politicians must progress beyond the fossil-fuel past into the sunny uplands of our shared renewable future.<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/The-power-to-transform-the-South-West_FINAL1.pdf The power to transform the South West: How to meet the region’s energy needs through renewable energy generation]<br />
: Researched and written by The Resilience Centre<br />
: Commissioned by Molly Scott Cato MEP<br />
: Funded by the Green/EFA group in the European Parliament<br />
# The South West region has the renewable energy resources to meet more than 100% of its total energy needs, including replacement of liquid fuels and electrifying railways.<br />
# We could generate 67,448,817 MWhrs/year of renewable energy as 42,690,806 MWehrs of electrical energy and 24,758,010 MWth of thermal energy (67,449 GWhrs/year) from 31,804 MW of Generating Capacity (thermal & electricity).<br />
# ''[the report omits a point 3]''<br />
# 34% of energy needs can be met from marine and inshore estuarine tidal energy, and 66% from onshore renewables.<br />
# To enable the devenopment of renewable energy generation we would suggest installing 12,051 MWe capacity of smart grid energy storage to balance intermittency of renewables and allow demand led local smart grids to be developed.<br />
# This energy storage would provide 19,281,000 MWhrs/year or 29% of energy as demand required. <br />
# An estimated 122,000 full time equivalent jobs could be created if we deliver and maintain this renewable energy generation regionally, an increase in employment of 4.5% for the region.<br />
# We estimate that the capital cost of delivering such a programme would be £59,484m, including £8,784m on Smart Grid energy storage. This is 72% of equivalent nuclear costs for delivering the same amount of energy.<br />
# The equivalent cost of delivering 100% of the South West energy needs from nuclear is £82,510m or 138% of the equivalent cost of delivering with renewable energy.<br />
# Renewables costs provide for a local smart grid with energy storage and flexibility to meet spikes and drops in demand and reduce need for large scale pylons and transmission systems.<br />
# Renewables costs include £500m/year investment in local/regional grid reinforcement and upgrade, equivalent to an increased annual expenditure on grid upgrade and management of 64% each year.<br />
# The potential annual value added for delivering the constrained renewable energy resources of the South West would be £4,286m/year, equivalent to an annual growth rate of 4.0% year on year and equivalent to 48% of the total value of the tourism industry and 87% of the aerospace and defence industry in the South West<br />
<br />
== UK National Infrastructure Commission ==<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-national-infrastructure-commissions-plan-for-a-renewable-uk/ The National Infrastructure Commission’s plan for a renewable UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 19 Jul 2018<br />
: The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) was launched by then-chancellor George Osborne in October 2015 to “think dispassionately and independently about Britain’s long-term infrastructure needs in areas like transport, energy, communication, flood defence and the like.” Well, the NIC has now thought dispassionately and independently about energy and has concluded that the UK can meet its 2050 decarbonization goals with either a mostly nuclear or mostly renewable generation mix, but that “wind and solar could deliver the same generating capacity as nuclear for the same price, and would be a better choice because there was less risk”. Here we take a brief look at this renewables-beats-nuclear option to see whether it might work.<br />
<br />
== USA ==<br />
[http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/ Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar] Mike Conley & Tim Maloney; 17 Apr 2015<br />
<br />
[http://uk.businessinsider.com/wind-turbines-to-power-earth-2016-9 Here's how much of the US would need to be covered in wind turbines to power the nation]<br />
Leanna Garfield ; Business Insider UK; 26 Sep 2016<br />
: Though the US invested $14.5 billion in wind-power project installations last year, wind farms still provide less than 5% of the nation's energy, according to the American Wind Energy Association. AWEA's manager of industry data analysis, John Hensley, did the following math: 4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines. In terms of land use, those 583,000 turbines would take up about the total land mass of Rhode Island, Hensley says, because wind projects typically require 0.74 acres of land per megawatt produced.<br />
: Hensley considered that the average wind turbine has an output of 2 megawatts of power and is 40% efficient. <br />
: For comparison, solar projects operate at an average of 20% efficiency<br />
: When you multiply a wind turbine's average potential (2 megawatts) by its 40% annual energy efficiency, 365 days a year, you get Hensley's estimate of the megawatt-hours of energy production each turbine can produce (7,008).<br />
<br />
=== David Roberts ===<br />
[http://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12721206/eastern-us-30-percent-renewables The Eastern US could get a third of its power from renewables within 10 years. Theoretically.] David Roberts; Vox; 31 Aug 2016<br />
: Model of Eastern Interconnect can accommodate 30 percent "variable generation" (VG)<br />
<br />
[http://www.biodiversivist.com/2016/09/david-roberts-on-latest-nrel-30-wind.html David Roberts on the latest NREL 30% wind and solar study] Russ Finley; Biodiversivist; 5 Sep 2016<br />
: consider this article to be a comment under David's article: The Eastern US could get a third of its power from renewables within 10years. Theoretically, which has no comment field.<br />
<br />
== Australia ==<br />
<br />
[http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/resources/assets/1708BlakersREAust.pdf 100% renewable electricity in Australia] Andrew Blakers, Bin Lu, Matthew Stocks; Energy; 29 May 2017<br />
: An hourly energy balance analysis is presented of the Australian National Electricity Market in a 100% renewable energy scenario, in which wind and photovoltaics (PV) provides about 90% of the annual electricity demand and existing hydroelectricity and biomass provides the balance. Heroic assumptions about future technology development are avoided by only including technology that is being deployed in large quantities (>10 Gigawatts per year), namely PV and wind.<br />
<br />
: Additional energy storage and stronger interconnection between regions was found to be necessary for stability. Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) constitutes 97% of worldwide electricity storage, and is adopted in this work. Many sites for closed loop PHES storage have been found in Australia. Distribution of PV and wind over 10e100 million hectares, utilising high voltage transmission, accesses different weather systems and reduces storage requirements (and overall cost).<br />
<br />
: The additional cost of balancing renewable energy supply with demand on an hourly rather than annual basis is found to be modest: AU$25e30/MWh (US$19e23/MWh). Using 2016 prices prevailing in Australia, the levelised cost of renewable electricity (LCOE) with hourly balancing is estimated to be AU$93/MWh (US$70/MWh). LCOE is almost certain to decrease due to rapidly falling cost of wind and PV<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/100-renewable-electricity-in-australia/ 100% renewable electricity in Australia] Euan Mearns / Roger Young; Energy Matters; 1 Nov 2017<br />
: The object of his post, which was originally submitted as a comment, is an academic study published by Blakers et al that claims Australia can become a 100% renewables nation at relatively low cost. Roger Young questions the modelling work presented and asserts that the storage requirement has been under-estimated by a factor of 12 which naturally has a profound impact on the cost estimates.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/australia-energy-storage-and-the-blakers-study/ Australia, energy storage and the Blakers study] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 13 Nov 2017<br />
: Roger Young’s recent post focused on the question of whether the energy storage requirements listed in Prof. Andrew Blakers’ study “100% renewable electricity in Australia” were realistic, but at the time no hard numbers on exactly how much storage Prof. Blakers’ scenarios would require were available. I have now come up with some reasonably hard numbers by applying Blakers’ scenarios to recent Australian grid data. Because the grid data cover a period of only a few months these numbers are not fully diagnostic, but they are sufficient to confirm Roger Young’s conclusion that the Blakers study seriously underestimates storage requirements.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wind-and-solar-on-thursday-island/ Wind and solar on Thursday Island] Roger Andrews / Mark; Energy Matters; 8 Feb 2018<br />
: In this post Mark documents the results of wind and solar data from Thursday Island that leaves him sceptical of the claims made by Prof. Andrew Blakers that wind generation spikes in Queensland will offset wind generation lulls in the rest of Australia<br />
<br />
: While rummaging around the internet to see if I could find any information on the performance of wind farms in Queensland (and especially in Far North Queensland – Andrew Blakers’ supposed panacea for the rather more correlated wind farm outputs in the NEM area), I came across Thursday Island, which installed a small two turbine wind farm 20 years ago. Thursday Island is about as FNQ as you can get – about 25 miles into the Torres Strait that separates Australia and Papua New Guinea. The bonanza came when I encountered a pamphlet from Harwell complete with charts showing monthly performance of the wind farm and its contribution to local power demand.<br />
<br />
== IRENA 2018 ==<br />
[http://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Apr/IRENA_Report_GET_2018.pdf Global Energy Transformation] International Renewable Energy Agency; 2018<br />
: Renewable energy needs to be scaled up at least six times faster for the world to start to meet the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. <br />
<br />
: The historic climate accord from 2015 seeks, at minimum, to limit average global temperature rise to “well below 2°C” in the present century, compared to pre-industrial levels. Renewables, in combination with rapidly improving energy efficiency, form the cornerstone of a viable climate solution.<br />
<br />
: Keeping the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius (°C) is technically feasible. It would also be more economically, socially and environmentally beneficial than the path resulting from current plans and policies. However, the global energy system must undergo a profound transformation, from one largely based on fossil fuels to one that enhances efficiency and is based on renewable energy. Such a global energy transformation – seen as the culmination of the “energy transition” that is already happening in many countries – can create a world that is more prosperous and inclusive.<br />
<br />
=== Criticism of IRENA 2018 ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-to-save-the-world-from-climate-catastrophe-the-irena-study/ How to save the world from climate catastrophe – the IRENA study] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 20 Nov 2018<br />
<br />
: IRENA, the International Renewable Agency, has just published a study showing how the world can meet the not-to-exceed-2°C emissions goal set by the Paris Agreement. It’s not a 100% renewables study – it still includes a little oil, gas and nuclear – but it concludes, unsurprisingly, that a massive expansion of renewable energy in all sectors will be needed between now and 2050, along with major improvements in energy efficiency, to keep the Earth within its allowable carbon budget. The study provides information on the changes that will be needed to meet this goal but provides no specifics on how they are to be met. It estimates the costs of the changes at $120 trillion (~$4 trillion/year from now to 2050, or about 5% of total world GDP) but provides no specifics on where the money is to come from. It is nevertheless confident that this massive outlay will be “dwarfed by the benefits”.<br />
<br />
: The IRENA report contains 73 pages, only 10 of which (Analysis and Insights in Key Sectors, pp. 31-40) deal with the specifics of the changes that are needed to achieve IRENA’s proposed “energy transition”. But no information is provided on how these changes are to be achieved and whether they will work if they are. Simulation models, such as those used in the Jacobson, Lappeenranta and Blakers studies, are normally used to perform this task, but IRENA seems to have by-passed this step. It has simply estimated how much renewable energy and improved energy efficiency is needed to meet the 2°C emissions goal, and the costs thereof, and it presents these estimates as achievable solutions rather than targets.<br />
<br />
: REmap’s assumed energy efficiency improvements cut the world’s 2050 energy consumption by 40% over what it would otherwise have been<br />
<br />
: The REmap scenario envisions a doubling of electricity generation, achieved mostly by a massive expansion of wind and solar, coupled with a reduction in fossil fuel generation<br />
<br />
: The percentage of renewables in the mix increases from 24% to 85% between 2015 and 2050. The remaining generation consists of 4% nuclear and 10% gas<br />
<br />
:* Hydro capacity expands by 37.5% between 2015 and 2050 and pumped hydro capacity by a factor of 2.1 (note that capacity is again give in GW, not GWh). This is optimistic but not unreasonable.<br />
<br />
:* Onshore wind capacity expands by factor of 12.3. The feasibility of this is questionable. Onshore wind is already coming under attack for its visual and potential health impacts, and the scale of the additions (an annual average of 150GW, roughly twice the UK’s total installed capacity) far exceeds anything achieved to date.<br />
<br />
:* Offshore wind capacity expands by a factor of 43. Enough said.<br />
<br />
:* Solar PV capacity expands by a factor of 32, an average rate of 230 GW a year. The maximum annual rate achieved so far, with the assistance of generous subsidies, is 100 GW/year.<br />
<br />
:* CSP (concentrated solar power) capacity expands by a factor of 127 to 633GW, roughly twice Japan’s present installed capacity. As discussed in posts here and here CSP is a borderline failed technology.<br />
<br />
:* Bioenergy capacity expands by a factor of 3.2 to 384 GW. I don’t have enough information to say whether this is feasible or not.<br />
<br />
:* Geothermal capacity expands by a factor of 23 to 227 GW. As discussed in this post there aren’t enough high-temperature geothermal resources in the world to support this level of expansion.<br />
<br />
:* Others (marine, hybrid) expand by a factor of 2,937 to 881 GW, not far short of total installed capacity in the European Union. If two-thirds of it is tidal we are looking at approximately 2,500 Swansea-Bay-sized tidal lagoons.<br />
<br />
: The question here is whether the generation from this capacity mix will cover demand 24/365 in all parts of the world. Simulation models, such as those used in the Jacobson, Lappeenranta and Blakers studies, are normally used to perform this task, but IRENA seems to have bypassed this step altogether. It has simply estimated how much renewable energy and improved energy efficiency is needed to meet the 2°C emissions goal, and it presents these estimates as achievable solutions rather than targets. Whether they would cover global demand 24/365 is, however, questionable. Conditions will of course vary in different places, but with 41,500 TWh of annual generation the average load will be 5.4 TW – substantially more than the 3.5 TW of dispatchable generation, some of which will not be well-adapted for load following. Managing wind and solar surpluses and deficits could therefore pose a problem.<br />
<br />
: And how does IRENA propose to manage it? It devotes only two short paragraphs, neither of which tells us much, to the issue (note: VRE = Variable Renewable Energy):<br />
<br />
:: ''Investments will be needed for storage, transmission and distribution capacity, and for flexible generation and demand-response. Between 2015 and 2050, investments in these areas would add an estimated USD 9 trillion under the REmap Case (relative to the Reference Case). This investment would allow the system to accommodate 62% VRE while ensuring an adequate, stable and reliable electricity supply.''<br />
<br />
:: ''Support investment to enable infrastructure to integrate VRE and smart technologies (including batteries, smart charging for electric vehicles, blockchain, machine learning, use of “big data”) that have the potential to optimise extensive use of renewables to generate power.''<br />
<br />
: And how much storage capacity will there be? None is listed in Figure 6, but the Transport section (IRENA Figure 10) includes 12,380 GWh of EV battery storage, enough to keep the world in electricity for about two hours assuming 100% charge/discharge efficiency. According to IRENA this capacity will come from over 1 billion EVs.<br />
<br />
:: ''sales of electric vehicles, electric buses and electric two- and three-wheelers are growing. In 2017 around 3 million electric vehicles were on the road. Under the REmap Case, the number would increase to over 1 billion by 2050.''<br />
<br />
: But 12,380 GWh spread over 1 billion EVs gives an average of only 12.38 kWh/vehicle, so many of these vehicles will be two- and three-wheelers used for transportation in developing countries. Whether these vehicles can be counted on to discharge their batteries when the grid needs it is questionable. Whether owners of four-wheel EVs in developed countries can be counted on to discharge their batteries when the grid needs it questionable too.<br />
<br />
== Energy Matters ==<br />
<br />
Euan Mearns and Roger Andrews at the Energy Matters blog have posted analyses of various scenarios for achieving reliable electricity supplies from wind and solar energy.<br />
<br />
=== Wind + storage for peak-smoothing ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-dispatchable-wind-power/ The Cost of Dispatchable Wind Power] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: I calculate how much storage would be required to deliver the diurnal peaks in demand from dispatchable wind – pumped – storage – hydro. I’ve taken this approach for a number of reasons:<br />
* The daily demand peaks fetch the highest prices and supplying these peaks follows the traditional finance model for pumped storage hydro – buying low and selling high<br />
* Servicing the peaks as opposed to base load minimises the amount of storage required (the demand peaks represent 18% of total demand in March 2015)<br />
* Supplying the demand peaks in the UK from wind + storage will allow about 20 GW of conventional generation to be retired<br />
* Allowing the fossil fuel generators to supply base load allows them to run at optimum efficiency and to minimise their CO2 emissions per unit of electricity produced. By way of contingency it leaves the door open for an all-nuclear base load supply.<br />
<br />
=== Over-capacity and curtailment ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-quest-for-100-renewables-can-curtailment-replace-storage/ The quest for 100% renewables – can curtailment replace storage?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 23 Jun 2017<br />
: Previous Energy Matters posts have highlighted the prohibitive amounts of energy storage that are needed to make 100% intermittent renewables work. In this post I give the problem one last shot. Can storage requirements be reduced to manageable levels by producing more renewable energy than is needed to fill demand and curtailing the surpluses? The answer is no. Curtailment does indeed reduce storage requirements, but not to manageable levels. This would appear to eliminate the possibility of developing a grid powered 100% by intermittent renewables. Backup fossil fuel generation will always be needed to fill demand when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wind-blowing-nowhere/ Wind Blowing Nowhere] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 23 Jan 2015<br />
: In much of Europe energy policy is being formulated by policymakers who assume that combining wind generation over large areas will flatten out the spikes and fill in the troughs and thereby allow wind to be “harnessed to provide reliable electricity” as the European Wind Energy Association tells them it will:<br />
<br />
::The wind does not blow continuously, yet there is little overall impact if the wind stops blowing somewhere – it is always blowing somewhere else. Thus, wind can be harnessed to provide reliable electricity even though the wind is not available 100% of the time at one particular site.<br />
<br />
: Here we will review whether this assumption is valid. We will do so by progressively combining hourly wind generation data for 2013 for nine countries in Western Europe downloaded from the excellent data base compiled by Paul-Frederik Bach, paying special attention to periods when “the wind stops blowing somewhere”. The nine countries are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Germany, Spain and the UK, which together cover a land area of 2.3 million square kilometers and extend over distances of 2,000 kilometers east-west and 4,000 kilometers north-south:<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/quantifying-wind-surpluses-and-deficits-in-western-europe/ Quantifying wind surpluses and deficits in Western Europe] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 7 Nov 2018<br />
: This post updates my January 2015 Wind blowing nowhere post using 2016 rather than 2013 data. The 2016 data show the same features as the 2013 data, with high and low wind conditions extending over large areas and a decreasing level of correlation with distance between countries. The post also quantifies the surpluses and deficits created by high and low wind conditions in January 2016 in gigawatts. The results indicate that wind surpluses in Western European countries during windy periods will be too large to be exported to surrounding countries and that wind deficits during wind lulls will be too large to be covered by imports from surrounding countries. This casts further doubt on claims that wind surpluses and deficits in one region can be offset by transfers to and from another because the wind is always blowing somewhere.<br />
<br />
=== Offshore wind - more reliable? ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/can-offshore-wind-be-integrated-with-the-grid/ Can offshore wind be integrated with the grid?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 7 Jul 2017<br />
: This is absolutely, positively my last effort to find something good to say about wind power. Previous Energy Matters posts that highlight the difficulties of integrating intermittent wind power with the grid have been based dominantly on onshore wind data, but claims that offshore wind is significantly less erratic and will therefore be much easier to integrate with the grid have not been checked. This post reviews the question of whether it will. It finds that offshore wind is indeed less erratic than onshore wind but still nowhere near consistent enough to do away with the need for storage or conventional backup generation.<br />
<br />
=== Converting intermittent to reliable ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/grid-scale-storage-of-renewable-energy-the-impossible-dream/ Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 20 Nov 2017<br />
<br />
: The utopian ambition for variable renewable energy is to convert it into uniform firm capacity using energy storage. Here we present an analysis of actual UK wind and solar generation for the whole of 2016 at 30 minute resolution and calculate the grid-scale storage requirement. In order to deliver 4.6 GW uniform and firm RE supply throughout the year, from 26 GW of installed capacity, requires 1.8 TWh of storage. We show that this is both thermodynamically and economically implausible to implement with current technology.<br />
<br />
=== Chile ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-valhalla-solar-pumped-hydro-project/ The Valhalla solar/pumped hydro project] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 27 Dec 2017<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-chiles-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/ How Chile’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 3 Jan 2018<br />
: If pumped hydro plants that use the sea as the lower reservoir can be put into large-scale operation Chile would be able to install at least 10 TWh of pumped hydro storage along its northern coast. With it Chile could convert enough intermittent solar into dispatchable form to replace all of its current fossil fuel generation, and at a levelized cost of electricity (provisionally estimated at around $80/MWh) that would be competitive with most other dispatchable generation sources. Northern Chile’s impressive pumped hydro potential is a result of the existence of natural depressions at elevations of 500m or more adjacent to the coast that can hold very large volumes of sea water and which form ready-made upper reservoirs.<br />
<br />
=== California ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-californias-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/ How California’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 17 Jan 2018<br />
: In my recent Chile post I outlined a plan under which Chile’s electricity sector could go 100% renewable by developing the pumped hydro storage potential of the Atacama Desert. In this post I consider whether California might not be able to do the same thing by developing the pumped hydro storage potential that exists just across the border in Northern Mexico. The conclusion is that it probably could, but not until California legislators recognize that megawatt-hour batteries will not supply the terawatt-hours of energy storage that will be needed to support an all-renewables grid, which so far they show no signs of doing.<br />
<br />
=== Storage ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/battery-storage-in-perspective-solving-1-of-the-problem/ Battery storage* in perspective – solving 1% of the problem] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 19 Feb 2018<br />
: The energy world is fixated on the “huge” amounts of battery storage presently being installed to back up slowly-increasing levels of intermittent renewables generation. The feeling seems to be that as soon as enough batteries are installed to take care of daily supply/demand imbalances we will no longer need conventional dispatchable energy – solar + wind + storage will be able to do it all. Here I take another look at the realities of the situation using what I hope are some telling visual examples of what battery storage will actually do for us. As discussed in previous posts it will get us no closer to the vision of a 100% renewables-powered world than we are now.<br />
<br />
: *Note: “Battery storage” covers all storage technologies currently being considered, including thermal, compressed air, pumped hydro etc. Batteries are, however, the flavor of the moment and are expected to capture the largest share of the future energy storage market.<br />
<br />
=== Australia ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-in-australia-snowy-2-0-vs-sea-water/ Pumped hydro energy storage in Australia – Snowy 2.0 vs. sea water] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 12 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
: To support a 100% renewable electricity sector Australia will need approximately 10 terawatt-hours of long-term energy storage. The multi-billion-dollar Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project will supply only 0.35 terawatt-hours, a small fraction of this, and conventional pumped hydro potential elsewhere in Australia, including Tasmania, will not fill the gap. This post addresses the question of whether Australia might not do better to pursue sea water pumped hydro instead of Snowy 2.0-type projects. Sea water pumped hydro potential in Australia is limited by the lack of suitable coastal topography, but there are sites capable of storing very large amounts of sea water at distances of more than 20km from the coast. The question is whether these sites can be developed and operated at acceptable cost.<br />
<br />
=== Demand Response ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/why-demand-response-wont-work/ Why “demand response” won’t work] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 17 May 2018<br />
: Those who envision a world powered entirely by renewables assume that “demand response” will play a key role in matching intermittent generation to future demand. In this post I evaluate historic demand data from two quite different grids – Denmark and California – to determine what factors have affected demand there and how large these effects are. In both cases demand changes are closely correlated with rapidly rising electricity prices, but these have not resulted in significant demand reductions in Denmark or, arguably, any demand reductions at all in California. Attempts to flatten out California’s “duck curve” have also been unsuccessful despite punitive electricity rates during high-demand periods. The conclusion is that financial incentives and disincentives will not result in the levels of demand response necessary to support an all-renewables world.<br />
<br />
=== Scotland ===<br />
<br />
[https://euanmearns.com/scotland-gagging-on-wind-power/ Scotland Gagging on Wind Power] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 12 Jan 2015<br />
: Discussion of Scottish renewables (mainly wind) capacity development<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wwf-masters-of-spin/ WWF – Masters of Spin] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 5 Jan 2015<br />
: The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) issued a press release on 3rd January detailing Scottish renewable energy production for 2014. The press release is based on data provided by WeatherEnergy, an organisation whose business I have yet to establish*. Here’s how my local Press and Journal reported the story:<br />
<br />
: Wind turbines generated enough power to supply more than 100% of Scottish households on 25 out of the 31 days of December. Throughout the year wind provided enough power for the electrical needs of 98% of Scottish households with solar power meeting two-thirds or more of household electricity or hot water needs, it added.<br />
<br />
: In fact what this should say is:<br />
<br />
:: Our computer model of wind and sunshine distribution suggests that wind turbines may have provided 35% and solar photovoltaics 0.44% of Scotland’s electricity in 2014.<br />
<br />
[https://www.gq.com/story/scotland-leads-renewable-energy Why Can't America Follow Scotland to 100 Percent Renewable Energy?] Luke Darby; GQ; 31 Jan 2020<br />
: Scotland is officially on track to run on 100 percent renewable energy by the end of 2020, just in time to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference later this year. The country has been aggressively leading the way in transitioning off of fossil fuels. It closed its last coal plant in 2016 and has vastly expanded its wind and solar power infrastructure. Last year, Scotland produced 9.8 million megawatt hours of wind energy, or more than twice the power needed for all 4.47 million homes in Scotland. And the Scottish government set a legally binding resolution to get the country down to net-zero emissions by 2045, five years ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
: Officials in Scotland concede that their rapid gains are thanks to going after "low hanging fruit," obvious and relatively easy fixes that don't directly inconvenience people. Getting all the way to net-zero emissions will involve revamping transportation, private industry, and home heating, which will likely be a much bigger headache than simply transitioning from fossil-fuel power plants. <br />
<br />
: ''Comment on GQ article''<br />
:* the headline talks about "100 Percent Renewable Energy" whereas the small print in the article makes clear they're only talking about electricity, which is a small (though significant) proportion of total energy consumption, which will not be decarbonised any time soon<br />
:* the article itself gives no information about the sources of "renewable" energy in Scotland, and whether a small country with exceptional hydro, wind, wave and tidal resources in proportion to its population is a good comparison for a diverse, continent-sized country.<br />
:* Also not mentioned in the article is that Scotland has 2 nuclear power stations providing baseload, a gas plant, and interconnections to England. Scotland's net "renewable" energy production may be comfortably greater than its net energy demand, but it seems likely that nuclear, gas, and energy from south of the border will be keeping its lights on when the wind doesn't blow.<br />
<br />
==Others==<br />
<br />
[http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/16/how-the-grid-works-why-renewables-can-dominate/ How The Grid Works, & Why Renewables Can Dominate] Christopher Arcus; CleanTechnica blog; 16 Dec 2015<br />
: Claims that high levels - though not not 100% - of renewables penetration could be achieved without significant storage.<br />
<br />
[http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/07/the-environmentalist-case-against-100-renewable-energy-plans/398906/ The Environmentalist Case Against 100% Renewable Energy Plans] JULIAN SPECTOR @JulianSpector; Citylab; 20 Jul 2015 (republished on Mother Jones as [http://motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/nuclear-power-renewables-climate-change Why We Need Nuclear Power])<br />
<br />
[https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/ Leap Manifesto] (Canadian)<br />
: Energy proposals based on Jacobson<br />
<br />
----<br />
=== 50% WWS ===<br />
[https://eciu.net/news-and-events/press-releases/2018/renewables-based-smart-grid-keeps-lights-on-even-during-wind-lull-and-does-so-affordably Renewables-based ‘smart grid’ keeps lights on even during ‘wind lull’, and does so affordably] ;Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit; 22 Nov 2018<br />
: A smart grid based around wind and solar power would be able to keep Britain’s lights on even during an extreme three-week ‘wind lull’ in the middle of winter, a new analysis shows.<br />
<br />
: This is a key finding in a [https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/downloads/Smart_Grid_Report_LQ.pdf report by New Resource Partners] on the resilience of a smart, flexible power system increasingly dominated by variable renewable sources of electricity.<br />
<br />
: The report also found that by 2030, a UK electricity system where wind and solar generate 50 per cent of the country’s electricity is comparable on cost with one dominated by gas-fired power stations.<br />
<br />
[https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/downloads/Smart_Grid_Report_LQ.pdf GB Power Transition: Get Smart] <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Off Grid ==<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/will-solar-panels-and-tesla-powerwalls-meet-your-homes-energy-needs/ Will solar panels and Tesla Powerwalls meet your home’s energy needs?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 29 Nov 2017<br />
: Tesla is now marketing its Powerwall2 storage battery for domestic applications, claiming among other things that it can make your home self-powered and blackout-proof. Here I review Tesla’s claims using an existing rooftop PV array in the Arizona desert as a real-life example. Will a few Powerwalls allow the homeowner to go off-grid? Not a chance. Will they make the home blackout-proof? Maybe, maybe not. Will they save the homeowner money on his electricity bills? Not that I can see.<br />
<br />
: The example rooftop array is in Tucson, Arizona. I selected Tucson because if a solar-Powerwall2 combination won’t work there it won’t work anywhere in the US. Except for the area around Death Valley to the northwest the solar resource is about as good as it gets, the low (about 30%) seasonal solar range means that there is no large seasonal storage requirement and seasonal generation is not in antiphase to demand, as it is in some areas farther north<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/going-off-grid-in-the-uk/ Going off-grid in the UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 6 Dec 2017<br />
: In my recent post featuring a residence in Tucson, Arizona (latitude 32 north) I found that no reasonable number of Tesla Powerwalls would allow the homeowner to go off-grid using a combination of solar and battery storage. In this post I review a residence in UK (latitude 52 north) and find, unsurprisingly, that its prospects for going off-grid with solar and Powerwalls are likewise non-existent. Further reviews show that the overgeneration approach does not work well in the UK either. The only presently-available option for a UK homeowner with a solar array who wants to go off grid is to combine solar with a backup generator.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/more-on-going-off-grid-in-uk/ More on going off-grid in UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 13 Dec 2017<br />
:In my previous Going off-grid post I reviewed the question of whether Tesla Powerwalls or overgeneration, considered separately, might allow a UK homeowner with a rooftop solar array to go off-grid. In this post I consider the two in combination. Once more using 10 Mossbank Way as an example I find that there are circumstances in which it might make marginal economic sense for Mossbank to install up to one Powerwall, but that again that there is no realistic combination of Powerwalls and overgeneration that would allow Mossbank to power itself year-round with solar alone. Going off-grid is again found to increase Mossbank’s electricity costs substantially no matter what combination of the two is adopted.<br />
<br />
==Critique of 100% renewables plans generally==<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118300485?via%3Dihub Real-World Challenges with a Rapid Transition to 100% Renewable Power Systems] Clara Franziska Heuberger, Niall Mac Dowell; Joule; 26 Feb 2018<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/185146/running-renewables-sure-about-future/ Running on renewables: how sure can we be about the future?] Hayley Dunning; Imperial College News; 6 Mar 2018<br />
: A variety of models predict the role renewables will play in 2050, but some may be over-optimistic, and should be used with caution, say researchers.<br />
<br />
: ... researchers at Imperial College London have urged caution when basing future energy decisions on over-optimistic models that predict that the entire system could be run on renewables by the middle of this century.<br />
<br />
: Mathematical models are used to provide future estimates by taking into account factors such as the development and adoption of new technologies to predict how much of our energy demand can be met by certain energy mixes in 2050.<br />
<br />
: These models can then be used to produce ‘pathways’ that should ensure these targets are met – such as through identifying policies that support certain types of technologies.<br />
<br />
: However the models are only as good as the data and underlying physics they are based on, and some might not always reflect ‘real-world’ challenges. For example, some models do not consider power transmission, energy storage, or system operability requirements.<br />
<br />
<br />
: Now, in a paper published in the journal Joule, Imperial researchers have shown that studies that predict whole systems can run on near-100% renewable power by 2050 may be flawed as they do not sufficiently account for reliability of the supply.<br />
<br />
: Using data for the UK, the team tested a model for 100% power generation using only wind, water and solar (WWS) power by 2050. They found that the lack of firm and dispatchable ‘backup’ energy systems – such as nuclear or power plants equipped with carbon capture systems – means the power supply would fail often enough that the system would be deemed inoperable.<br />
<br />
: The team found that even if they added a small amount of backup nuclear and biomass energy, creating a 77% WWS system, around 9% of the annual UK demand could remain unmet, leading to considerable power outages and economic damage.<br />
<br />
: "...If a specific scenario relies on a combination of hypothetical and potentially socially challenging adaptation measures, in addition to disruptive technology breakthroughs, this begins to feel like wishful thinking."<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Heard, Brook, Wigley & Bradshaw ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117304495 Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems] B.P. Heard, B.W. Brook, T.M.L. Wigley, C.J.A. Bradshaw; Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; <br />
Volume 76, September 2017, Pages 1122–1133 [paywall]<br />
: Abstract<br />
: An effective response to climate change demands rapid replacement of fossil carbon energy sources. This must occur concurrently with an ongoing rise in total global energy consumption. While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible. Of the studies published to date, 24 have forecast regional, national or global energy requirements at sufficient detail to be considered potentially credible. We critically review these studies using four novel feasibility criteria for reliable electricity systems needed to meet electricity demand this century. These criteria are: (1) consistency with mainstream energy-demand forecasts; (2) simulating supply to meet demand reliably at hourly, half-hourly, and five-minute timescales, with resilience to extreme climate events; (3) identifying necessary transmission and distribution requirements; and (4) maintaining the provision of essential ancillary services. Evaluated against these objective criteria, none of the 24 studies provides convincing evidence that these basic feasibility criteria can be met. Of a maximum possible unweighted feasibility score of seven, the highest score for any one study was four. Eight of 24 scenarios (33%) provided no form of system simulation. Twelve (50%) relied on unrealistic forecasts of energy demand. While four studies (17%; all regional) articulated transmission requirements, only two scenarios—drawn from the same study—addressed ancillary-service requirements. In addition to feasibility issues, the heavy reliance on exploitation of hydroelectricity and biomass raises concerns regarding environmental sustainability and social justice. Strong empirical evidence of feasibility must be demonstrated for any study that attempts to construct or model a low-carbon energy future based on any combination of low-carbon technology. On the basis of this review, efforts to date seem to have substantially underestimated the challenge and delayed the identification and implementation of effective and comprehensive decarbonization pathways.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-dream-of-100-renewables-assessed-by-heard-et-al/ The dream of 100% renewables assessed by Heard et al] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 12 Apr 2017<br />
: Discussion of Heard et al paper<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy Is it the right target? Is it even possible?] David Roberts; Vox; 4 Apr 2017<br />
: Imagine powering civilization entirely with energy from renewable sources: wind, sun, water (hydroelectricity), naturally occurring heat (geothermal), and plants. No coal mines, oil wells, pipelines, or coal trains. No greenhouse gas emissions, car exhaust, or polluted streams. No wars over oil, dependence on foreign suppliers, or resource shortages.<br />
<br />
: Sounds nice, right?<br />
<br />
: A growing number of activists say it is within reach. The idea has inspired ambitious commitments from an increasing number of cities, including Madison, Wisconsin, San Diego, and Salt Lake City. Advocates are pushing states to support the goal. Clean-energy enthusiasts frequently claim that we can go bigger, that it’s possible for the whole world to run on renewables — we merely lack the “political will.” So, is it true? Do we know how get to an all-renewables system? Not yet. Not really. Current modeling strongly suggests that we will need a broader portfolio of low-carbon options, including nuclear and possibly coal or natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), to get deep cuts in carbon.<br />
<br />
[https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.]<br />
David Roberts; Vox; 7 Apr 2017<br />
: Reasons for skepticism, reasons for optimism, and some tentative conclusions.<br />
<br />
: Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons. So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient? That is the core of the dispute over 100 percent renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS. In this post I’m going to discuss three papers that examine the subject, try to draw a few tentative conclusions, and issue a plea for open minds and flexibility.<br />
<br />
[http://seekerblog.com/2016/01/17/energiewende-and-caliwende-the-heavy-cost-of-ideology/ Energiewende and Caliwende – the Heavy Cost of Ideology] Seeker Blog; 17 Jan 2016<br />
<br />
[https://www.jpmorgan.com/cm/BlobServer/Brave_New_World_-_Annual_energy_piece.pdf A Brave New World - deep decarbonisation of energy grids] J.P.Morgan; 19 Oct 2015<br />
: we focus on Germany and its Energiewende plan (deep de-carbonization of the electricity grid in which 80% of demand is met by renewable energy), and on a California version we refer to as Caliwende. We compare these systems to the current electricity mix, and to a balanced system with a mix of renewable and nuclear energy<br />
<br />
: Our primary conclusions:<br />
* A critical part of any analysis of high-renewable systems is the cost of backup thermal power and/or storage needed to meet demand during periods of low renewable generation. These costs are substantial; as a result, levelized costs of wind and solar are not the right tools to use in assessing the total cost of a high-renewable system<br />
* Emissions. High-renewable grids reduce CO2 emissions by 65%-70% in Germany and 55%-60% in California vs. the current grid. Reason: backup thermal capacity is idle for much of the year <br />
* Costs. High-renewable grid costs per MWh are 1.9x the current system in Germany, and 1.5x in California. Costs fall to 1.6x in Germany and 1.2x in California assuming long-run “learning curve” declines in wind, solar and storage costs, higher nuclear plant costs and higher natural gas fuel costs <br />
* Storage. The cost of time-shifting surplus renewable generation via storage has fallen, but its cost, intermittent utilization and energy loss result in higher per MWh system costs when it is added <br />
* Nuclear. Balanced systems with nuclear power have lower estimated costs and CO2 emissions than high-renewable systems. However, there’s enormous uncertainty regarding the actual cost of nuclear power in the US and Europe, rendering balanced system assessments less reliable. Nuclear power is growing in Asia where plant costs are 20%-30% lower, but political, historical, economic, regulatory and cultural issues prevent these observations from being easily applied outside of Asia <br />
* Location and comparability. Germany and California rank in the top 70th and 90th percentiles with respect to their potential wind and solar energy (see Appendix I). However, actual wind and solar energy productivity is higher in California (i.e., higher capacity factors), which is the primary reason that Energiewende is more expensive per MWh than Caliwende. Regions without high quality wind and solar irradiation may find that grids dominated by renewable energy are more costly <br />
* What-ifs. National/cross-border grid expansion, storing electricity in electric car batteries, demand management and renewable energy overbuilding are often mentioned as ways of reducing the cost of high-renewable systems. However, each relies to some extent on conjecture, insufficient empirical support and/or incomplete assessments of related costs <br />
<br />
[http://www.thirdway.org/report/the-climate-challenge-can-renewables-really-do-it-alone The Climate Challenge: Can Renewables Really do it Alone?] Josh Freed, Matt Bennett, Matt Goldberg; Third Way think-tank; 16 Dec 2015<br />
: tl;dr: no<br />
<br />
[https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/can-you-make-a-wind-turbine-without-fossil-fuels-2/ Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?] Robert Wilson; Carbon Counter; 11 Jun 2015<br />
: fossil fuel requirements and CO2 emissions of steel & concrete production - relevant to nuclear etc also<br />
<br />
: THIS POST ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE<br />
<br />
[http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf Limitations of 'Renewable' Energy] Leo Smith MA (Electrical sciences); (self-published)<br />
:* Introduction<br />
:* The three necessary concepts<br />
:* What is energy and power density, and why is it important?<br />
:* The important problem of intermittency<br />
:* What is dispatch, and why is it important?<br />
::* Nuclear power, dispatch and co-operation with intermittent renewables<br />
::* Dispatching with hydro electricity or pumped storage<br />
::* Dispatching with fossil fuelled power stations<br />
:* Capacity factor, and cost benefit analysis<br />
::* Where capacity factor originated<br />
::* The cost of variability<br />
::* Deriving costs of electrical generation<br />
::* Costing mixed grids of medium intermittent renewable content<br />
::* Indirect social, financial, resource and environmental costs of intermittency<br />
:* The real economics of nuclear power.<br />
::* Safety, waste disposal, and decommissioning<br />
* A pessimistic view?<br />
<br />
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/climate-carbon-renewables.html Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat] EDUARDO PORTER; N Y Times; 7 Nov 2017<br />
: ... as climate diplomats gather this week in Bonn, Germany, for the 23rd Conference of the Parties under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, I would like to point their attention to a different, perhaps gloomier statistic: the world’s carbon intensity of energy.<br />
<br />
: The term refers to a measure of the amount of CO2 spewed into the air for each unit of energy consumed. It offers some bad news: It has not budged since that chilly autumn day in Kyoto 20 years ago. Even among the highly industrialized nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the carbon intensity of energy has declined by a paltry 4 percent since then, according to the International Energy Agency.<br />
<br />
: This statistic, alone, puts a big question mark over the strategies deployed around the world to replace fossil energy. In a nutshell: Perhaps renewables are not the answer.<br />
<br />
: Over the past 10 years, governments and private investors have collectively spent $2 trillion on infrastructure to draw electricity from the wind and the sun, according to estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Environmental Progress, a nonprofit that advocates nuclear power as an essential tool in the battle against climate change, says that exceeds the total cost of all nuclear plants built to date or under construction, adjusted for inflation.<br />
<br />
: Capacity from renewable sources has grown by leaps and bounds, outpacing growth from all other sources — including coal, natural gas and nuclear power — in recent years. Solar and wind capacity installed in 2015 was more than 10 times what the International Energy Agency had forecast a decade before.<br />
<br />
: Still, except for very limited exceptions, all this wind and sun has not brought about much decarbonization. Indeed, it has not added much clean power to the grid.<br />
<br />
: Environmental Progress performed an analysis of the evolution of the carbon intensity of energy in 68 countries since 1965. It found no correlation between the additions of solar and wind power and the carbon intensity of energy: Despite additions of renewable capacity, carbon intensity remained flat.<br />
<br />
[[File:Proportion clean energy hydro+nuclear v renewables by country NY Times.png]]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/ The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid] James Temple; MIT Technology Review; 27 Jul 2018<br />
: Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.<br />
<br />
== Resource requirements of renewables ==<br />
<br />
=== Netherlands (Metabolic) study ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.metabolic.nl/publications/metal-demand-renewable-electricity-generation-netherlands/ METAL DEMANDFOR RENEWABLE ELECTRICITYGENERATION IN THE NETHERLANDS] Pieter van Exter et al; Metabolic; 2018<br />
: The current global supply of several critical metals is insufficient to transition to a renewable energy system. Calculations for the Netherlands show that production of wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV) solar panels already requires a significant share of the annual global production of some critical metals.Looking at the global scale, scenarios in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement require the global production of some metals to grow at least twelvefold towards 2050, compared to today’s output. Specifically, the demand for neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium stands out. This calculation does not include the demand for these specific metals in other applications, such as electric vehicles or consumer electronics.<br />
<br />
[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3mavb/we-dont-mine-enough-rare-earth-metals-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energy We Don't Mine Enough Rare Earth Metals to Replace Fossil Fuels With Renewable Energy] Nafeez Ahmed; Vice Motherboard; 12 Dec 2018<br />
: Rare earth metals are used in solar panels and wind turbines—as well as electric cars and consumer electronics. We don't recycle them, and there's not enough to meet growing demand.<br />
<br />
: A new scientific study supported by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure warns that the renewable energy industry could be about to face a fundamental obstacle: shortages in the supply of rare metals.<br />
<br />
: To meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement, renewable energy production has to scale up fast. This means that global production of several rare earth minerals used in solar panels and wind turbines—especially neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium—must grow twelvefold by 2050.<br />
<br />
: But according to the new study by Dutch energy systems company Metabolic, the “current global supply of several critical metals is insufficient to transition to a renewable energy system.”<br />
<br />
: The study focuses on demand for rare metals in the Netherlands and extrapolates this to develop a picture of how global trends are likely to develop.<br />
<br />
: “If the rest of the world would develop renewable electricity capacity at a comparable pace with the Netherlands, a considerable shortage would arise,” the study finds. This doesn’t include other applications of rare earth metals in other electronics industries (rare earth metals are widely used in smartphones, for example). “When other applications (such as electric vehicles) are also taken into consideration, the required amount of certain metals would further increase.”<br />
<br />
: Demand for rare metals is pitched to rise exponentially across the world, and not just due to renewables. Demand is most evident in “consumer electronics, military applications, and other technical equipment in industrial applications. The growth of the global middle class from 1 billion to 3 billion people will only further accelerate this growth.”<br />
<br />
: But the study did not account for those other industries. This means the actual problem could be far more intractable. In 2017, a study in Nature found that a range of minerals essential for smartphones, laptops, electric cars and even copper wiring could face supply shortages in coming decades.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21359 Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance] Saleem H. Ali; Nature; 16 Mar 2017 ''(paywalled)''<br />
: Successful delivery of the United Nations sustainable development goals and implementation of the Paris Agreement requires technologies that utilize a wide range of minerals in vast quantities. Metal recycling and technological change will contribute to sustaining supply, but mining must continue and grow for the foreseeable future to ensure that such minerals remain available to industry. New links are needed between existing institutional frameworks to oversee responsible sourcing of minerals, trajectories for mineral exploration, environmental practices, and consumer awareness of the effects of consumption. Here we present, through analysis of a comprehensive set of data and demand forecasts, an interdisciplinary perspective on how best to ensure ecologically viable continuity of global mineral supply over the coming decades.<br />
<br />
== Actual 100% renewable installations ==<br />
<br />
''See [http://scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Energy_mix#Mini-grids_.2F_small_100.25_renewables_projects:_Tasmania.2C_El_Hierro.2C_Ta.27u_etc Small Renewables Projects]''</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Index&diff=5496Help:Index2022-08-03T23:59:41Z<p>Sisussman: </p>
<hr />
<div>{| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%;"<br />
|- style="vertical-align:top;"<br />
| style="width: 50%"| '''Shortcuts'''<br />
* [[Special:AllPages | All Pages]]<br />
* [[Special:Upload | Upload file]]<br />
* [https://scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=500&ilsearch=&user= List files]<br />
* [https://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=&to=&namespace=10 Templates]<br />
* [https://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Categories&offset=&limit=500 Categories]<br />
** [https://scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Category:Hidden_categories Hidden Categories]<br />
* [[Special:Version]]<br />
* [[Special:LinkSearch | Search for external links]]<br />
* [[MediaWiki:Sidebar | Sidebar]]<br />
* [[Special:MassEditRegex | Mass edit using regular expressions]]<br />
<br />
<br />
| style="width: 50%"| '''Working'''<br />
* [[Resources]]<br />
<br />
|- style="vertical-align:top;"<br />
| '''Help'''<br />
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Images Help:Images] MediaWiki<br />
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Linking_to_files Linking to (rather than embedding) files]<br />
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EmbedVideo Extension EmbedVideo]<br />
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TreeAndMenu Extension TreeAndMenu]<br />
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:TemplateStyles Help:TemplateStyles] MediaWiki<br />
* [https://www.tablesgenerator.com/mediawiki_tables# Generate MediaWiki Tables]<br />
** [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables Help:Tables] MediaWiki<br />
* [https://www.pagetutor.com/common/bgcolors1536.html HTML colour chart] [[Help:HexColours|local]]<br />
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Using_custom_namespaces Using custom namespaces]<br />
** [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgNamespaceProtection Namespace protection]<br />
** [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Lockdown Extension Lockdown]<br />
<br />
| '''Local examples'''<br />
* [[Help:TestImageWidth| Responsive Image Width]]<br />
* [[Help:ResponsiveImage with caption | ResponsiveImage with caption]]<br />
* [[Help:Animated mp4 | Animated mp4]]<br />
* [[Help:Side-by-side video and image | Side-by-side video and image]]<br />
* [[Help:Side-by-side videos | Side-by-side videos]]<br />
* [[Help:YouTube video with caption]]<br />
* [[Help:TreeAndMenu | Tree And Menu]]<br />
|}</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=File:Greenpeace_energy_revolution_2015.pdf&diff=5495File:Greenpeace energy revolution 2015.pdf2022-08-03T23:58:25Z<p>Sisussman: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=100%25_renewables&diff=5494100% renewables2022-08-03T23:56:54Z<p>Sisussman: /* Greenpeace */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 2]] <br />
[[Category: 100% renewables]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
There are various claims that individual countries, or even the whole world, could obtain all their electricity - or even their whole energy supplies - from various combinations of low-carbon "renewable" sources, excluding nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and, usually, biomass. Reasons given for excluding nuclear energy range from general unquantified concerns about "safety", claims that nuclear is not a low-carbon source, and assertion that use of nuclear energy will lead to nuclear war.<br />
<br />
All proposed scenarios depend heavily on intermittent sources of renewable energy and can be categorised by how they propose to try to solve the problem of matching intermittent supplies to demand, and to what extent they quantify the measures they propose to do this. At one extreme Greenpeace based its 2012 [[#Greenpeace|energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution]] on an assumption that the IT industry would somehow come up with a way of making demand match supply. At the other extreme [[#Zero Carbon Britain|Zero Carbon Britain]] offers a detailed, quantified plan based on converting excess intermittent electricity to storable chemical fuels. Between these extremes are proposals which depend on more or less plausible combinations of very long distance transmission of huge amounts of energy, prodigious amounts of storage and/or dispatchable hydro.<br />
<br />
Few of these proposals have been published in the scientific literature or by recognised expert bodies. Of those which have, and which have been examined by the IPCC and other experts, none has been found to be generally satisfactory.<br />
<br />
== Jacobson et al ==<br />
<br />
The best-known proponent of what he calls "100% WWS" (100% Wind, Water and Sun) is [[Mark Z. Jacobson]].<br />
Jacobson is a Professor at Stanford University and a recognised expert on the effects on climate of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol aerosols] - fine solid particles or liquid droplets suspended in the atmosphere.<br />
<br />
Jacobson has in recent years advocated 100% renewables energy scenarios for the United States and, later, worldwide. His proposals have been enthusiastically received by politicians, celebrities and environmental organisations, but widely criticised by energy experts and commentators. Most notoriously when Renewables expert Christopher Clack and 20 others published a paper criticising and rebutting Jacobson's claims Jacobson responded by suing the National Academy of Sciences for publishing the paper, and the Clack - the only author without institutional backing - personally for $10Million.<br />
<br />
Jacobson rejects nuclear energy partly because he claims that expanding nuclear energy will inevitably lead to nuclear war causing cities to burn, releasing CO2.<br />
<br />
== Breyer / Lappeenranta University of Technology ==<br />
<br />
Another 100% renewables plan is by Christian Breyer and colleages at the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland.<br />
[[Breyer-LUT]]<br />
<br />
== Zero Carbon Britain (CAT) ==<br />
<br />
The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT)'s [http://zerocarbonbritain.org/ Zero Carbon Britain] includes a plan for producing reliable electricity supplies using intermittent renewables, converting excess electricity into methane which can be stored and converted back into electricity when needed.<br />
<br />
== French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME) ==<br />
<br />
French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME)'s [http://www.actu-environnement.com/media/pdf/rapport100pourcentsENR_comite.pdf Vers un mix eléctrique 100% renouvelable en 2050] (and response "[http://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/articles/pdf_files/temoignages/Analyse%20rapport%20ADEME%20tout%20renouvelables_G%20Sapy.pdf Analysis and comments on the report: towards a mix 100% renewables in 2050]" - in French).<br />
<br />
=== Commentary & criticism of ZCB, ADEME etc ===<br />
Critical analysis of ADEME and CAT/ZCB scenarios with particular reference to energy storage in: [http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-storage-and-power-to-methane/ Renewable Energy Storage and Power-To-Methane] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters blog; 25 Jun 2015<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-renewables-future-a-summary-of-findings/ The Renewables Future – A Summary of Findings] Roger Andrews; 13 Aug 2015<br />
<br />
== Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill: Australia ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512002169 Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market] Ben Elliston, Mark Diesendorf, Iain MacGill<br />
<br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987376/dispelling_the_nuclear_baseload_myth_nothing_renewables_cant_do_better.html Dispelling the nuclear 'baseload' myth: nothing renewables can't do better!] Mark Diesendorf; The Ecologist; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: The main claim used to justify nuclear is that it's the only low carbon power source that can supply 'reliable, baseload electricity', writes Mark Diesendorf - unlike wind and solar. But not only can renewables supply baseload power, they can do something far more valuable: supply power flexibly according to demand. Now nuclear power really is redundant.<br />
<br />
=== Commentary & criticism of Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill ===<br />
<br />
[http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/06/02/critique-100pc-renewables-edm/ Critique of the proposal for 100% renewable energy electricity supply in Australia] Dr Ted Trainer; Brave New Climate blog; 2 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== Elliston and Riesz ==<br />
<br />
[http://ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/PES%20APPEEC%202015%20-%20Elliston-Riesz-NearSolutions-2015-07-14a.pdf Future high renewable electricity scenarios – Insights from mapping the diversity of near least cost portfolios] B. Elliston, J. Riesz<br />
: This paper reports on future electricity generation scenarios modelled using NEMO, a model that applies a genetic algorithm to optimise a mix of simulated generators to meet hourly demand profiles, to the required reliability standard, at lowest overall industry cost. The modelling examined the least and near least cost technology portfolios for a scenario that limited emissions to approximately one quarter of those from the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) at present. It was found that all the near least cost solutions (within 15% of the least cost solution) involved wind capacity in the range of 31-51 GW, with 98.8% of these near least cost portfolios having at least 35 GW of wind installed. In contrast, the near least cost solutions consistently involved much lower quantities of PV, with 90% of the near least cost portfolios having less than 4.9 GW of installed PV capacity. This suggests that policies to promote high levels of wind deployment and grid integration are likely to be important for achieving low cost, low emissions outcomes, while policies to promote significant PV deployment may be less warranted in the absence of cost effective supporting technologies, such as battery storage or significant demand side participation.<br />
: 3/4 of peer-rev'd refs are author's own. Other is BZE which proposes Australia abandon aviation by 2020. - Oscar Archer @ActinideAge<br />
<br />
== Greenpeace / Brainpool ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/essays/2987195/wind_power_with_windgas_is_cheaper_and_greener_than_hinkley_point_c_nuclear_plant.html Wind power with 'windgas' is cheaper and greener than Hinkley Point C nuclear plant] Ecologist<br />
<br />
[http://www.energybrainpool.com/en/services/study-directory/studies-hinkley-point-c.html STUDIES ABOUT THE PLANNED BRITISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HINKLEY POINT C] Energy Brainpool<br />
<br />
*Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: At a lower cost / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (German only)<br />
* Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: A cost comparison / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (English)<br />
* Effects of Hinkley Point C on the german electricity market / Study on behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, July 2015 (German only)<br />
* Level of public funding of Hinkley Point C / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, June 2015 (German only)<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/pressematerial/Hinkley_Point/20160121_Study_Windgas_HPC_English.pdf WIND POWER AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEAR POWER FROM HINKLEY POINT C: A COST COMPARISON] A short analysis commissioned by Greenpeace Energy in Germany<br />
<br />
[http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2014/10/27/what-happens-when-the-wind-doesnt-blow/ What happens when the wind doesn’t blow?] Southern Alliance for Clean Energy blog<br />
<br />
== Greenpeace ==<br />
<br />
[[Media:Greenpeace energy revolution 2012.pdf | energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution]] 2012<br />
{{q|'''Technological opportunities''' Changes to the power system by 2050 will create huge business opportunities for the information, communication and technology (ICT) sector. A smart grid has power supplied from a diverse range of sources and places and it relies on the gathering and analysis of a lot of data. Smart grids require software, hardware and data networks capable of delivering data quickly, and of responding to the information that they contain. Several important ICT players are racing to smarten up energy grids across the globe and hundreds of companies could be involved with smart grids.<br />
<br />
There are numerous IT companies offering products and services to manage and monitor energy. These include IBM, Fujitsu, Google, Microsoft and Cisco. These and other giants of the telecommunications and technology sector have the power to make the grid smarter, and to move us faster towards a clean energy future. Greenpeace has initiated the ‘Cool IT’ campaign to put pressure on the IT sector to make such technologies a reality.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2015/Energy-Revolution-2015-Full.pdf energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution] 2015<br />
: 5th Edition<br />
* Project manager and lead author Dr. Sven Teske, Greenpeace International<br />
* Global Wind Energy Council steve sawyer<br />
* SolarPowerEurope oliver schäfer<br />
* research & co-authors<br />
* Overall Modelling: dlr, institute of engineering thermodynamics, systems analysis and technology assessment, stuttgart, germany: dr. thomas Pregger, dr. sonja simon, dr. tobias naegler<br />
<br />
[http://www.demandenergyequality.org/2030-energy-scenario.html 2030 Energy Scenarios]<br />
[http://www.mediafire.com/download/r79m6jakihb0ud7/Greenpeace_2030_Public_Sept2015.pdf report]<br />
:In early 2015 we were commissioned by Greenpeace UK to design and test an ambitious, low carbon 2030 energy scenario using the 'Smart Household Energy Demand (SHED) model. It shows that it is possible for the UK's power system to be nearly 90% renewably delivered by 2030, while electrifying 25% of all heating demand - and putting 12.7 million electric cars on the road. But only if we can cut demand for space heating by 57% in the next 15 years - a major challenge.<br />
[http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/09/21/4-ways-the-uk-can-get-almost-all-its-power-from-renewables/ 4 ways the UK can get almost all its power from renewables – without Hinkley]<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Climate-Reports/Energy-Revolution-2015/ Energy Revolution 2015]<br />
<br />
== Skeptical science ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374 Can renewables provide baseload power?] based on <br />
* [http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf DO WE NEED BASE-LOAD POWER STATIONS?] Diesendorf/EnergyScience Coalition<br />
* US National Renewable Energy Laboratory [http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html] [http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/wwsis.html]<br />
* [http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/ Ecofys] [http://www.skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-by-2050.html report],<br />
* [http://www.skepticalscience.com/plan-100-percent-energy-wind-water-solar.html Jacobson & Delucci] [http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf (part 1)]<br />
* [http://www.rethinking2050.eu/fileadmin/documents/ReThinking2050_full_version_final.pdf European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)] * broken link *<br />
* [http://diggy.ruc.dk//bitstream/1800/4386/1/A_RENEWABLE_ENERGY_AND_HYDROGEN_SCENARIO_FOR_NORTHERN_EUROPE.pdf A renewable energy and hydrogen scenario for northern Europe] Sorensen<br />
* [http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/ ZCB]<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544208000959 Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050] Lund and Mathiessen; Energy; 2009 (paywall)<br />
* [http://www.die-klima-allianz.de/wp-content/uploads/uba_2010.pdf Energieziel 2050: 100% Strom auserneuerbaren Quellen] Klaus 2010 (Germany)<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261910003703 How to achieve a 100% RES electricity supply for Portugal?] Krajačić et al; Applied Energy; 2010 - 5th Dubrovnik (hydro, storage - via H2?)<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191000070X The first step towards a 100% renewable energy-system for Ireland] Connolly et al; Applied Energy; 2010 - 5th Dubrovnik ("three different 100% renewable energy-systems were created with each focusing on a different resource: biomass, hydrogen, and electricity. These energy-systems were compared so that the benefits from each could be used to create an ‘optimum’ scenario called combination. Although the results illustrate a potential 100% renewable energy-system for Ireland, they have been obtained based on numerous assumptions. Therefore, these will need to be improved in the future before a serious roadmap can be defined for Ireland’s renewable energy transition")<br />
* [http://www.skepticalscience.com/Zero-Carbon-Australia-2020.html Zero Carbon Australia]<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510001850 A 100% renewable electricity generation system for New Zealand utilising hydro, wind, geothermal and biomass resources] Mason et al.; Energy Policy; 2010 (paywall) (60% hydro 32% ff - plan adds wind, geothermal, uses hydro storage)<br />
<br />
== Krugman ==<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/opinion/planet-on-the-ballot.html Planet on the Ballot] Paul Krugman; NY Times; 29 Feb 2016<br />
<br />
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432262/paul-krugman-renewable-energy-folly-coal-and-fossil-fuels-still-necessary Paul Krugman Needs an Energy Reality Check] Robert Bryce; National Review; 3 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
== Chivers / Two Energy Futures ==<br />
[http://www.twoenergyfutures.net/ Two Energy Futures] ''(links in site don't work - reported to Danny Chivers 03/05/2019)''<br />
<br />
[http://newint.org/blog/2015/08/15/material-requirements/ The stuff problem] Danny Chivers; New Internationalist blog; <br />
:+links<br />
<br />
== Scott Cato / South West England ==<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/2015/04/17/power-to-transform/ Power To Transform] index page<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MSC-SW-Energy-leaflet-V2_pages.pdf Summary leaflet – easy to read pages]<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MSC-SW-Energy-leaflet-V2_spreads.pdf Summary leaflet – full spread]<br />
<br />
: A report commissioned by Molly Scott Cato MEP reveals:<br />
* The region has the renewable energy resources to meet more than 100% of its total energy needs, including replacement of liquid fuels.<br />
* A move to a renewable energy economy has the potential to create 122,000 jobs, an increase in employment of 4.5% across the region.<br />
* One third of energy needs can be met from marine and inshore estuarine tidal energy, with the remaining two thirds from onshore renewables.<br />
* The cost of delivering 100% renewable energy to the region would be around £60 billion. The equivalent cost of delivering 100% of energy needs from nuclear would be around £83 billion.<br />
* Renewables offer opportunities for ushering in a Smart Grid Energy Storage system that would balance the intermittency of some renewable technologies<br />
* Local Smart Grids developed in conjunction with renewable energy resources would reduce the need for large scale pylons and transmission systems. In the South West we can demonstrate just how much better a society powered by clean, green energy would really be. As is so often the case, the right environmental choice will also ensure greater economic justice and help us build flourishing local economies. Locally produced renewable energy will bring a huge economic boost and new jobs and benefit in particular some of our more deprived rural economies. The South West of England has some of the world’s best renewable energy resources, in great abundance and great variety. All that holds us back from a renewable energy revolution and energy security is a failure of political will. Our politicians must progress beyond the fossil-fuel past into the sunny uplands of our shared renewable future.<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/The-power-to-transform-the-South-West_FINAL1.pdf The power to transform the South West: How to meet the region’s energy needs through renewable energy generation]<br />
: Researched and written by The Resilience Centre<br />
: Commissioned by Molly Scott Cato MEP<br />
: Funded by the Green/EFA group in the European Parliament<br />
# The South West region has the renewable energy resources to meet more than 100% of its total energy needs, including replacement of liquid fuels and electrifying railways.<br />
# We could generate 67,448,817 MWhrs/year of renewable energy as 42,690,806 MWehrs of electrical energy and 24,758,010 MWth of thermal energy (67,449 GWhrs/year) from 31,804 MW of Generating Capacity (thermal & electricity).<br />
# ''[the report omits a point 3]''<br />
# 34% of energy needs can be met from marine and inshore estuarine tidal energy, and 66% from onshore renewables.<br />
# To enable the devenopment of renewable energy generation we would suggest installing 12,051 MWe capacity of smart grid energy storage to balance intermittency of renewables and allow demand led local smart grids to be developed.<br />
# This energy storage would provide 19,281,000 MWhrs/year or 29% of energy as demand required. <br />
# An estimated 122,000 full time equivalent jobs could be created if we deliver and maintain this renewable energy generation regionally, an increase in employment of 4.5% for the region.<br />
# We estimate that the capital cost of delivering such a programme would be £59,484m, including £8,784m on Smart Grid energy storage. This is 72% of equivalent nuclear costs for delivering the same amount of energy.<br />
# The equivalent cost of delivering 100% of the South West energy needs from nuclear is £82,510m or 138% of the equivalent cost of delivering with renewable energy.<br />
# Renewables costs provide for a local smart grid with energy storage and flexibility to meet spikes and drops in demand and reduce need for large scale pylons and transmission systems.<br />
# Renewables costs include £500m/year investment in local/regional grid reinforcement and upgrade, equivalent to an increased annual expenditure on grid upgrade and management of 64% each year.<br />
# The potential annual value added for delivering the constrained renewable energy resources of the South West would be £4,286m/year, equivalent to an annual growth rate of 4.0% year on year and equivalent to 48% of the total value of the tourism industry and 87% of the aerospace and defence industry in the South West<br />
<br />
== UK National Infrastructure Commission ==<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-national-infrastructure-commissions-plan-for-a-renewable-uk/ The National Infrastructure Commission’s plan for a renewable UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 19 Jul 2018<br />
: The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) was launched by then-chancellor George Osborne in October 2015 to “think dispassionately and independently about Britain’s long-term infrastructure needs in areas like transport, energy, communication, flood defence and the like.” Well, the NIC has now thought dispassionately and independently about energy and has concluded that the UK can meet its 2050 decarbonization goals with either a mostly nuclear or mostly renewable generation mix, but that “wind and solar could deliver the same generating capacity as nuclear for the same price, and would be a better choice because there was less risk”. Here we take a brief look at this renewables-beats-nuclear option to see whether it might work.<br />
<br />
== USA ==<br />
[http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/ Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar] Mike Conley & Tim Maloney; 17 Apr 2015<br />
<br />
[http://uk.businessinsider.com/wind-turbines-to-power-earth-2016-9 Here's how much of the US would need to be covered in wind turbines to power the nation]<br />
Leanna Garfield ; Business Insider UK; 26 Sep 2016<br />
: Though the US invested $14.5 billion in wind-power project installations last year, wind farms still provide less than 5% of the nation's energy, according to the American Wind Energy Association. AWEA's manager of industry data analysis, John Hensley, did the following math: 4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines. In terms of land use, those 583,000 turbines would take up about the total land mass of Rhode Island, Hensley says, because wind projects typically require 0.74 acres of land per megawatt produced.<br />
: Hensley considered that the average wind turbine has an output of 2 megawatts of power and is 40% efficient. <br />
: For comparison, solar projects operate at an average of 20% efficiency<br />
: When you multiply a wind turbine's average potential (2 megawatts) by its 40% annual energy efficiency, 365 days a year, you get Hensley's estimate of the megawatt-hours of energy production each turbine can produce (7,008).<br />
<br />
=== David Roberts ===<br />
[http://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12721206/eastern-us-30-percent-renewables The Eastern US could get a third of its power from renewables within 10 years. Theoretically.] David Roberts; Vox; 31 Aug 2016<br />
: Model of Eastern Interconnect can accommodate 30 percent "variable generation" (VG)<br />
<br />
[http://www.biodiversivist.com/2016/09/david-roberts-on-latest-nrel-30-wind.html David Roberts on the latest NREL 30% wind and solar study] Russ Finley; Biodiversivist; 5 Sep 2016<br />
: consider this article to be a comment under David's article: The Eastern US could get a third of its power from renewables within 10years. Theoretically, which has no comment field.<br />
<br />
== Australia ==<br />
<br />
[http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/resources/assets/1708BlakersREAust.pdf 100% renewable electricity in Australia] Andrew Blakers, Bin Lu, Matthew Stocks; Energy; 29 May 2017<br />
: An hourly energy balance analysis is presented of the Australian National Electricity Market in a 100% renewable energy scenario, in which wind and photovoltaics (PV) provides about 90% of the annual electricity demand and existing hydroelectricity and biomass provides the balance. Heroic assumptions about future technology development are avoided by only including technology that is being deployed in large quantities (>10 Gigawatts per year), namely PV and wind.<br />
<br />
: Additional energy storage and stronger interconnection between regions was found to be necessary for stability. Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) constitutes 97% of worldwide electricity storage, and is adopted in this work. Many sites for closed loop PHES storage have been found in Australia. Distribution of PV and wind over 10e100 million hectares, utilising high voltage transmission, accesses different weather systems and reduces storage requirements (and overall cost).<br />
<br />
: The additional cost of balancing renewable energy supply with demand on an hourly rather than annual basis is found to be modest: AU$25e30/MWh (US$19e23/MWh). Using 2016 prices prevailing in Australia, the levelised cost of renewable electricity (LCOE) with hourly balancing is estimated to be AU$93/MWh (US$70/MWh). LCOE is almost certain to decrease due to rapidly falling cost of wind and PV<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/100-renewable-electricity-in-australia/ 100% renewable electricity in Australia] Euan Mearns / Roger Young; Energy Matters; 1 Nov 2017<br />
: The object of his post, which was originally submitted as a comment, is an academic study published by Blakers et al that claims Australia can become a 100% renewables nation at relatively low cost. Roger Young questions the modelling work presented and asserts that the storage requirement has been under-estimated by a factor of 12 which naturally has a profound impact on the cost estimates.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/australia-energy-storage-and-the-blakers-study/ Australia, energy storage and the Blakers study] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 13 Nov 2017<br />
: Roger Young’s recent post focused on the question of whether the energy storage requirements listed in Prof. Andrew Blakers’ study “100% renewable electricity in Australia” were realistic, but at the time no hard numbers on exactly how much storage Prof. Blakers’ scenarios would require were available. I have now come up with some reasonably hard numbers by applying Blakers’ scenarios to recent Australian grid data. Because the grid data cover a period of only a few months these numbers are not fully diagnostic, but they are sufficient to confirm Roger Young’s conclusion that the Blakers study seriously underestimates storage requirements.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wind-and-solar-on-thursday-island/ Wind and solar on Thursday Island] Roger Andrews / Mark; Energy Matters; 8 Feb 2018<br />
: In this post Mark documents the results of wind and solar data from Thursday Island that leaves him sceptical of the claims made by Prof. Andrew Blakers that wind generation spikes in Queensland will offset wind generation lulls in the rest of Australia<br />
<br />
: While rummaging around the internet to see if I could find any information on the performance of wind farms in Queensland (and especially in Far North Queensland – Andrew Blakers’ supposed panacea for the rather more correlated wind farm outputs in the NEM area), I came across Thursday Island, which installed a small two turbine wind farm 20 years ago. Thursday Island is about as FNQ as you can get – about 25 miles into the Torres Strait that separates Australia and Papua New Guinea. The bonanza came when I encountered a pamphlet from Harwell complete with charts showing monthly performance of the wind farm and its contribution to local power demand.<br />
<br />
== IRENA 2018 ==<br />
[http://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Apr/IRENA_Report_GET_2018.pdf Global Energy Transformation] International Renewable Energy Agency; 2018<br />
: Renewable energy needs to be scaled up at least six times faster for the world to start to meet the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. <br />
<br />
: The historic climate accord from 2015 seeks, at minimum, to limit average global temperature rise to “well below 2°C” in the present century, compared to pre-industrial levels. Renewables, in combination with rapidly improving energy efficiency, form the cornerstone of a viable climate solution.<br />
<br />
: Keeping the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius (°C) is technically feasible. It would also be more economically, socially and environmentally beneficial than the path resulting from current plans and policies. However, the global energy system must undergo a profound transformation, from one largely based on fossil fuels to one that enhances efficiency and is based on renewable energy. Such a global energy transformation – seen as the culmination of the “energy transition” that is already happening in many countries – can create a world that is more prosperous and inclusive.<br />
<br />
=== Criticism of IRENA 2018 ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-to-save-the-world-from-climate-catastrophe-the-irena-study/ How to save the world from climate catastrophe – the IRENA study] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 20 Nov 2018<br />
<br />
: IRENA, the International Renewable Agency, has just published a study showing how the world can meet the not-to-exceed-2°C emissions goal set by the Paris Agreement. It’s not a 100% renewables study – it still includes a little oil, gas and nuclear – but it concludes, unsurprisingly, that a massive expansion of renewable energy in all sectors will be needed between now and 2050, along with major improvements in energy efficiency, to keep the Earth within its allowable carbon budget. The study provides information on the changes that will be needed to meet this goal but provides no specifics on how they are to be met. It estimates the costs of the changes at $120 trillion (~$4 trillion/year from now to 2050, or about 5% of total world GDP) but provides no specifics on where the money is to come from. It is nevertheless confident that this massive outlay will be “dwarfed by the benefits”.<br />
<br />
: The IRENA report contains 73 pages, only 10 of which (Analysis and Insights in Key Sectors, pp. 31-40) deal with the specifics of the changes that are needed to achieve IRENA’s proposed “energy transition”. But no information is provided on how these changes are to be achieved and whether they will work if they are. Simulation models, such as those used in the Jacobson, Lappeenranta and Blakers studies, are normally used to perform this task, but IRENA seems to have by-passed this step. It has simply estimated how much renewable energy and improved energy efficiency is needed to meet the 2°C emissions goal, and the costs thereof, and it presents these estimates as achievable solutions rather than targets.<br />
<br />
: REmap’s assumed energy efficiency improvements cut the world’s 2050 energy consumption by 40% over what it would otherwise have been<br />
<br />
: The REmap scenario envisions a doubling of electricity generation, achieved mostly by a massive expansion of wind and solar, coupled with a reduction in fossil fuel generation<br />
<br />
: The percentage of renewables in the mix increases from 24% to 85% between 2015 and 2050. The remaining generation consists of 4% nuclear and 10% gas<br />
<br />
:* Hydro capacity expands by 37.5% between 2015 and 2050 and pumped hydro capacity by a factor of 2.1 (note that capacity is again give in GW, not GWh). This is optimistic but not unreasonable.<br />
<br />
:* Onshore wind capacity expands by factor of 12.3. The feasibility of this is questionable. Onshore wind is already coming under attack for its visual and potential health impacts, and the scale of the additions (an annual average of 150GW, roughly twice the UK’s total installed capacity) far exceeds anything achieved to date.<br />
<br />
:* Offshore wind capacity expands by a factor of 43. Enough said.<br />
<br />
:* Solar PV capacity expands by a factor of 32, an average rate of 230 GW a year. The maximum annual rate achieved so far, with the assistance of generous subsidies, is 100 GW/year.<br />
<br />
:* CSP (concentrated solar power) capacity expands by a factor of 127 to 633GW, roughly twice Japan’s present installed capacity. As discussed in posts here and here CSP is a borderline failed technology.<br />
<br />
:* Bioenergy capacity expands by a factor of 3.2 to 384 GW. I don’t have enough information to say whether this is feasible or not.<br />
<br />
:* Geothermal capacity expands by a factor of 23 to 227 GW. As discussed in this post there aren’t enough high-temperature geothermal resources in the world to support this level of expansion.<br />
<br />
:* Others (marine, hybrid) expand by a factor of 2,937 to 881 GW, not far short of total installed capacity in the European Union. If two-thirds of it is tidal we are looking at approximately 2,500 Swansea-Bay-sized tidal lagoons.<br />
<br />
: The question here is whether the generation from this capacity mix will cover demand 24/365 in all parts of the world. Simulation models, such as those used in the Jacobson, Lappeenranta and Blakers studies, are normally used to perform this task, but IRENA seems to have bypassed this step altogether. It has simply estimated how much renewable energy and improved energy efficiency is needed to meet the 2°C emissions goal, and it presents these estimates as achievable solutions rather than targets. Whether they would cover global demand 24/365 is, however, questionable. Conditions will of course vary in different places, but with 41,500 TWh of annual generation the average load will be 5.4 TW – substantially more than the 3.5 TW of dispatchable generation, some of which will not be well-adapted for load following. Managing wind and solar surpluses and deficits could therefore pose a problem.<br />
<br />
: And how does IRENA propose to manage it? It devotes only two short paragraphs, neither of which tells us much, to the issue (note: VRE = Variable Renewable Energy):<br />
<br />
:: ''Investments will be needed for storage, transmission and distribution capacity, and for flexible generation and demand-response. Between 2015 and 2050, investments in these areas would add an estimated USD 9 trillion under the REmap Case (relative to the Reference Case). This investment would allow the system to accommodate 62% VRE while ensuring an adequate, stable and reliable electricity supply.''<br />
<br />
:: ''Support investment to enable infrastructure to integrate VRE and smart technologies (including batteries, smart charging for electric vehicles, blockchain, machine learning, use of “big data”) that have the potential to optimise extensive use of renewables to generate power.''<br />
<br />
: And how much storage capacity will there be? None is listed in Figure 6, but the Transport section (IRENA Figure 10) includes 12,380 GWh of EV battery storage, enough to keep the world in electricity for about two hours assuming 100% charge/discharge efficiency. According to IRENA this capacity will come from over 1 billion EVs.<br />
<br />
:: ''sales of electric vehicles, electric buses and electric two- and three-wheelers are growing. In 2017 around 3 million electric vehicles were on the road. Under the REmap Case, the number would increase to over 1 billion by 2050.''<br />
<br />
: But 12,380 GWh spread over 1 billion EVs gives an average of only 12.38 kWh/vehicle, so many of these vehicles will be two- and three-wheelers used for transportation in developing countries. Whether these vehicles can be counted on to discharge their batteries when the grid needs it is questionable. Whether owners of four-wheel EVs in developed countries can be counted on to discharge their batteries when the grid needs it questionable too.<br />
<br />
== Energy Matters ==<br />
<br />
Euan Mearns and Roger Andrews at the Energy Matters blog have posted analyses of various scenarios for achieving reliable electricity supplies from wind and solar energy.<br />
<br />
=== Wind + storage for peak-smoothing ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-dispatchable-wind-power/ The Cost of Dispatchable Wind Power] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: I calculate how much storage would be required to deliver the diurnal peaks in demand from dispatchable wind – pumped – storage – hydro. I’ve taken this approach for a number of reasons:<br />
* The daily demand peaks fetch the highest prices and supplying these peaks follows the traditional finance model for pumped storage hydro – buying low and selling high<br />
* Servicing the peaks as opposed to base load minimises the amount of storage required (the demand peaks represent 18% of total demand in March 2015)<br />
* Supplying the demand peaks in the UK from wind + storage will allow about 20 GW of conventional generation to be retired<br />
* Allowing the fossil fuel generators to supply base load allows them to run at optimum efficiency and to minimise their CO2 emissions per unit of electricity produced. By way of contingency it leaves the door open for an all-nuclear base load supply.<br />
<br />
=== Over-capacity and curtailment ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-quest-for-100-renewables-can-curtailment-replace-storage/ The quest for 100% renewables – can curtailment replace storage?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 23 Jun 2017<br />
: Previous Energy Matters posts have highlighted the prohibitive amounts of energy storage that are needed to make 100% intermittent renewables work. In this post I give the problem one last shot. Can storage requirements be reduced to manageable levels by producing more renewable energy than is needed to fill demand and curtailing the surpluses? The answer is no. Curtailment does indeed reduce storage requirements, but not to manageable levels. This would appear to eliminate the possibility of developing a grid powered 100% by intermittent renewables. Backup fossil fuel generation will always be needed to fill demand when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wind-blowing-nowhere/ Wind Blowing Nowhere] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 23 Jan 2015<br />
: In much of Europe energy policy is being formulated by policymakers who assume that combining wind generation over large areas will flatten out the spikes and fill in the troughs and thereby allow wind to be “harnessed to provide reliable electricity” as the European Wind Energy Association tells them it will:<br />
<br />
::The wind does not blow continuously, yet there is little overall impact if the wind stops blowing somewhere – it is always blowing somewhere else. Thus, wind can be harnessed to provide reliable electricity even though the wind is not available 100% of the time at one particular site.<br />
<br />
: Here we will review whether this assumption is valid. We will do so by progressively combining hourly wind generation data for 2013 for nine countries in Western Europe downloaded from the excellent data base compiled by Paul-Frederik Bach, paying special attention to periods when “the wind stops blowing somewhere”. The nine countries are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Germany, Spain and the UK, which together cover a land area of 2.3 million square kilometers and extend over distances of 2,000 kilometers east-west and 4,000 kilometers north-south:<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/quantifying-wind-surpluses-and-deficits-in-western-europe/ Quantifying wind surpluses and deficits in Western Europe] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 7 Nov 2018<br />
: This post updates my January 2015 Wind blowing nowhere post using 2016 rather than 2013 data. The 2016 data show the same features as the 2013 data, with high and low wind conditions extending over large areas and a decreasing level of correlation with distance between countries. The post also quantifies the surpluses and deficits created by high and low wind conditions in January 2016 in gigawatts. The results indicate that wind surpluses in Western European countries during windy periods will be too large to be exported to surrounding countries and that wind deficits during wind lulls will be too large to be covered by imports from surrounding countries. This casts further doubt on claims that wind surpluses and deficits in one region can be offset by transfers to and from another because the wind is always blowing somewhere.<br />
<br />
=== Offshore wind - more reliable? ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/can-offshore-wind-be-integrated-with-the-grid/ Can offshore wind be integrated with the grid?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 7 Jul 2017<br />
: This is absolutely, positively my last effort to find something good to say about wind power. Previous Energy Matters posts that highlight the difficulties of integrating intermittent wind power with the grid have been based dominantly on onshore wind data, but claims that offshore wind is significantly less erratic and will therefore be much easier to integrate with the grid have not been checked. This post reviews the question of whether it will. It finds that offshore wind is indeed less erratic than onshore wind but still nowhere near consistent enough to do away with the need for storage or conventional backup generation.<br />
<br />
=== Converting intermittent to reliable ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/grid-scale-storage-of-renewable-energy-the-impossible-dream/ Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 20 Nov 2017<br />
<br />
: The utopian ambition for variable renewable energy is to convert it into uniform firm capacity using energy storage. Here we present an analysis of actual UK wind and solar generation for the whole of 2016 at 30 minute resolution and calculate the grid-scale storage requirement. In order to deliver 4.6 GW uniform and firm RE supply throughout the year, from 26 GW of installed capacity, requires 1.8 TWh of storage. We show that this is both thermodynamically and economically implausible to implement with current technology.<br />
<br />
=== Chile ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-valhalla-solar-pumped-hydro-project/ The Valhalla solar/pumped hydro project] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 27 Dec 2017<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-chiles-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/ How Chile’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 3 Jan 2018<br />
: If pumped hydro plants that use the sea as the lower reservoir can be put into large-scale operation Chile would be able to install at least 10 TWh of pumped hydro storage along its northern coast. With it Chile could convert enough intermittent solar into dispatchable form to replace all of its current fossil fuel generation, and at a levelized cost of electricity (provisionally estimated at around $80/MWh) that would be competitive with most other dispatchable generation sources. Northern Chile’s impressive pumped hydro potential is a result of the existence of natural depressions at elevations of 500m or more adjacent to the coast that can hold very large volumes of sea water and which form ready-made upper reservoirs.<br />
<br />
=== California ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-californias-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/ How California’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 17 Jan 2018<br />
: In my recent Chile post I outlined a plan under which Chile’s electricity sector could go 100% renewable by developing the pumped hydro storage potential of the Atacama Desert. In this post I consider whether California might not be able to do the same thing by developing the pumped hydro storage potential that exists just across the border in Northern Mexico. The conclusion is that it probably could, but not until California legislators recognize that megawatt-hour batteries will not supply the terawatt-hours of energy storage that will be needed to support an all-renewables grid, which so far they show no signs of doing.<br />
<br />
=== Storage ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/battery-storage-in-perspective-solving-1-of-the-problem/ Battery storage* in perspective – solving 1% of the problem] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 19 Feb 2018<br />
: The energy world is fixated on the “huge” amounts of battery storage presently being installed to back up slowly-increasing levels of intermittent renewables generation. The feeling seems to be that as soon as enough batteries are installed to take care of daily supply/demand imbalances we will no longer need conventional dispatchable energy – solar + wind + storage will be able to do it all. Here I take another look at the realities of the situation using what I hope are some telling visual examples of what battery storage will actually do for us. As discussed in previous posts it will get us no closer to the vision of a 100% renewables-powered world than we are now.<br />
<br />
: *Note: “Battery storage” covers all storage technologies currently being considered, including thermal, compressed air, pumped hydro etc. Batteries are, however, the flavor of the moment and are expected to capture the largest share of the future energy storage market.<br />
<br />
=== Australia ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-in-australia-snowy-2-0-vs-sea-water/ Pumped hydro energy storage in Australia – Snowy 2.0 vs. sea water] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 12 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
: To support a 100% renewable electricity sector Australia will need approximately 10 terawatt-hours of long-term energy storage. The multi-billion-dollar Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project will supply only 0.35 terawatt-hours, a small fraction of this, and conventional pumped hydro potential elsewhere in Australia, including Tasmania, will not fill the gap. This post addresses the question of whether Australia might not do better to pursue sea water pumped hydro instead of Snowy 2.0-type projects. Sea water pumped hydro potential in Australia is limited by the lack of suitable coastal topography, but there are sites capable of storing very large amounts of sea water at distances of more than 20km from the coast. The question is whether these sites can be developed and operated at acceptable cost.<br />
<br />
=== Demand Response ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/why-demand-response-wont-work/ Why “demand response” won’t work] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 17 May 2018<br />
: Those who envision a world powered entirely by renewables assume that “demand response” will play a key role in matching intermittent generation to future demand. In this post I evaluate historic demand data from two quite different grids – Denmark and California – to determine what factors have affected demand there and how large these effects are. In both cases demand changes are closely correlated with rapidly rising electricity prices, but these have not resulted in significant demand reductions in Denmark or, arguably, any demand reductions at all in California. Attempts to flatten out California’s “duck curve” have also been unsuccessful despite punitive electricity rates during high-demand periods. The conclusion is that financial incentives and disincentives will not result in the levels of demand response necessary to support an all-renewables world.<br />
<br />
=== Scotland ===<br />
<br />
[https://euanmearns.com/scotland-gagging-on-wind-power/ Scotland Gagging on Wind Power] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 12 Jan 2015<br />
: Discussion of Scottish renewables (mainly wind) capacity development<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wwf-masters-of-spin/ WWF – Masters of Spin] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 5 Jan 2015<br />
: The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) issued a press release on 3rd January detailing Scottish renewable energy production for 2014. The press release is based on data provided by WeatherEnergy, an organisation whose business I have yet to establish*. Here’s how my local Press and Journal reported the story:<br />
<br />
: Wind turbines generated enough power to supply more than 100% of Scottish households on 25 out of the 31 days of December. Throughout the year wind provided enough power for the electrical needs of 98% of Scottish households with solar power meeting two-thirds or more of household electricity or hot water needs, it added.<br />
<br />
: In fact what this should say is:<br />
<br />
:: Our computer model of wind and sunshine distribution suggests that wind turbines may have provided 35% and solar photovoltaics 0.44% of Scotland’s electricity in 2014.<br />
<br />
[https://www.gq.com/story/scotland-leads-renewable-energy Why Can't America Follow Scotland to 100 Percent Renewable Energy?] Luke Darby; GQ; 31 Jan 2020<br />
: Scotland is officially on track to run on 100 percent renewable energy by the end of 2020, just in time to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference later this year. The country has been aggressively leading the way in transitioning off of fossil fuels. It closed its last coal plant in 2016 and has vastly expanded its wind and solar power infrastructure. Last year, Scotland produced 9.8 million megawatt hours of wind energy, or more than twice the power needed for all 4.47 million homes in Scotland. And the Scottish government set a legally binding resolution to get the country down to net-zero emissions by 2045, five years ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
: Officials in Scotland concede that their rapid gains are thanks to going after "low hanging fruit," obvious and relatively easy fixes that don't directly inconvenience people. Getting all the way to net-zero emissions will involve revamping transportation, private industry, and home heating, which will likely be a much bigger headache than simply transitioning from fossil-fuel power plants. <br />
<br />
: ''Comment on GQ article''<br />
:* the headline talks about "100 Percent Renewable Energy" whereas the small print in the article makes clear they're only talking about electricity, which is a small (though significant) proportion of total energy consumption, which will not be decarbonised any time soon<br />
:* the article itself gives no information about the sources of "renewable" energy in Scotland, and whether a small country with exceptional hydro, wind, wave and tidal resources in proportion to its population is a good comparison for a diverse, continent-sized country.<br />
:* Also not mentioned in the article is that Scotland has 2 nuclear power stations providing baseload, a gas plant, and interconnections to England. Scotland's net "renewable" energy production may be comfortably greater than its net energy demand, but it seems likely that nuclear, gas, and energy from south of the border will be keeping its lights on when the wind doesn't blow.<br />
<br />
==Others==<br />
<br />
[http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/16/how-the-grid-works-why-renewables-can-dominate/ How The Grid Works, & Why Renewables Can Dominate] Christopher Arcus; CleanTechnica blog; 16 Dec 2015<br />
: Claims that high levels - though not not 100% - of renewables penetration could be achieved without significant storage.<br />
<br />
[http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/07/the-environmentalist-case-against-100-renewable-energy-plans/398906/ The Environmentalist Case Against 100% Renewable Energy Plans] JULIAN SPECTOR @JulianSpector; Citylab; 20 Jul 2015 (republished on Mother Jones as [http://motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/nuclear-power-renewables-climate-change Why We Need Nuclear Power])<br />
<br />
[https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/ Leap Manifesto] (Canadian)<br />
: Energy proposals based on Jacobson<br />
<br />
----<br />
=== 50% WWS ===<br />
[https://eciu.net/news-and-events/press-releases/2018/renewables-based-smart-grid-keeps-lights-on-even-during-wind-lull-and-does-so-affordably Renewables-based ‘smart grid’ keeps lights on even during ‘wind lull’, and does so affordably] ;Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit; 22 Nov 2018<br />
: A smart grid based around wind and solar power would be able to keep Britain’s lights on even during an extreme three-week ‘wind lull’ in the middle of winter, a new analysis shows.<br />
<br />
: This is a key finding in a [https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/downloads/Smart_Grid_Report_LQ.pdf report by New Resource Partners] on the resilience of a smart, flexible power system increasingly dominated by variable renewable sources of electricity.<br />
<br />
: The report also found that by 2030, a UK electricity system where wind and solar generate 50 per cent of the country’s electricity is comparable on cost with one dominated by gas-fired power stations.<br />
<br />
[https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/downloads/Smart_Grid_Report_LQ.pdf GB Power Transition: Get Smart] <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Off Grid ==<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/will-solar-panels-and-tesla-powerwalls-meet-your-homes-energy-needs/ Will solar panels and Tesla Powerwalls meet your home’s energy needs?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 29 Nov 2017<br />
: Tesla is now marketing its Powerwall2 storage battery for domestic applications, claiming among other things that it can make your home self-powered and blackout-proof. Here I review Tesla’s claims using an existing rooftop PV array in the Arizona desert as a real-life example. Will a few Powerwalls allow the homeowner to go off-grid? Not a chance. Will they make the home blackout-proof? Maybe, maybe not. Will they save the homeowner money on his electricity bills? Not that I can see.<br />
<br />
: The example rooftop array is in Tucson, Arizona. I selected Tucson because if a solar-Powerwall2 combination won’t work there it won’t work anywhere in the US. Except for the area around Death Valley to the northwest the solar resource is about as good as it gets, the low (about 30%) seasonal solar range means that there is no large seasonal storage requirement and seasonal generation is not in antiphase to demand, as it is in some areas farther north<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/going-off-grid-in-the-uk/ Going off-grid in the UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 6 Dec 2017<br />
: In my recent post featuring a residence in Tucson, Arizona (latitude 32 north) I found that no reasonable number of Tesla Powerwalls would allow the homeowner to go off-grid using a combination of solar and battery storage. In this post I review a residence in UK (latitude 52 north) and find, unsurprisingly, that its prospects for going off-grid with solar and Powerwalls are likewise non-existent. Further reviews show that the overgeneration approach does not work well in the UK either. The only presently-available option for a UK homeowner with a solar array who wants to go off grid is to combine solar with a backup generator.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/more-on-going-off-grid-in-uk/ More on going off-grid in UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 13 Dec 2017<br />
:In my previous Going off-grid post I reviewed the question of whether Tesla Powerwalls or overgeneration, considered separately, might allow a UK homeowner with a rooftop solar array to go off-grid. In this post I consider the two in combination. Once more using 10 Mossbank Way as an example I find that there are circumstances in which it might make marginal economic sense for Mossbank to install up to one Powerwall, but that again that there is no realistic combination of Powerwalls and overgeneration that would allow Mossbank to power itself year-round with solar alone. Going off-grid is again found to increase Mossbank’s electricity costs substantially no matter what combination of the two is adopted.<br />
<br />
==Critique of 100% renewables plans generally==<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118300485?via%3Dihub Real-World Challenges with a Rapid Transition to 100% Renewable Power Systems] Clara Franziska Heuberger, Niall Mac Dowell; Joule; 26 Feb 2018<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/185146/running-renewables-sure-about-future/ Running on renewables: how sure can we be about the future?] Hayley Dunning; Imperial College News; 6 Mar 2018<br />
: A variety of models predict the role renewables will play in 2050, but some may be over-optimistic, and should be used with caution, say researchers.<br />
<br />
: ... researchers at Imperial College London have urged caution when basing future energy decisions on over-optimistic models that predict that the entire system could be run on renewables by the middle of this century.<br />
<br />
: Mathematical models are used to provide future estimates by taking into account factors such as the development and adoption of new technologies to predict how much of our energy demand can be met by certain energy mixes in 2050.<br />
<br />
: These models can then be used to produce ‘pathways’ that should ensure these targets are met – such as through identifying policies that support certain types of technologies.<br />
<br />
: However the models are only as good as the data and underlying physics they are based on, and some might not always reflect ‘real-world’ challenges. For example, some models do not consider power transmission, energy storage, or system operability requirements.<br />
<br />
<br />
: Now, in a paper published in the journal Joule, Imperial researchers have shown that studies that predict whole systems can run on near-100% renewable power by 2050 may be flawed as they do not sufficiently account for reliability of the supply.<br />
<br />
: Using data for the UK, the team tested a model for 100% power generation using only wind, water and solar (WWS) power by 2050. They found that the lack of firm and dispatchable ‘backup’ energy systems – such as nuclear or power plants equipped with carbon capture systems – means the power supply would fail often enough that the system would be deemed inoperable.<br />
<br />
: The team found that even if they added a small amount of backup nuclear and biomass energy, creating a 77% WWS system, around 9% of the annual UK demand could remain unmet, leading to considerable power outages and economic damage.<br />
<br />
: "...If a specific scenario relies on a combination of hypothetical and potentially socially challenging adaptation measures, in addition to disruptive technology breakthroughs, this begins to feel like wishful thinking."<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Heard, Brook, Wigley & Bradshaw ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117304495 Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems] B.P. Heard, B.W. Brook, T.M.L. Wigley, C.J.A. Bradshaw; Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; <br />
Volume 76, September 2017, Pages 1122–1133 [paywall]<br />
: Abstract<br />
: An effective response to climate change demands rapid replacement of fossil carbon energy sources. This must occur concurrently with an ongoing rise in total global energy consumption. While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible. Of the studies published to date, 24 have forecast regional, national or global energy requirements at sufficient detail to be considered potentially credible. We critically review these studies using four novel feasibility criteria for reliable electricity systems needed to meet electricity demand this century. These criteria are: (1) consistency with mainstream energy-demand forecasts; (2) simulating supply to meet demand reliably at hourly, half-hourly, and five-minute timescales, with resilience to extreme climate events; (3) identifying necessary transmission and distribution requirements; and (4) maintaining the provision of essential ancillary services. Evaluated against these objective criteria, none of the 24 studies provides convincing evidence that these basic feasibility criteria can be met. Of a maximum possible unweighted feasibility score of seven, the highest score for any one study was four. Eight of 24 scenarios (33%) provided no form of system simulation. Twelve (50%) relied on unrealistic forecasts of energy demand. While four studies (17%; all regional) articulated transmission requirements, only two scenarios—drawn from the same study—addressed ancillary-service requirements. In addition to feasibility issues, the heavy reliance on exploitation of hydroelectricity and biomass raises concerns regarding environmental sustainability and social justice. Strong empirical evidence of feasibility must be demonstrated for any study that attempts to construct or model a low-carbon energy future based on any combination of low-carbon technology. On the basis of this review, efforts to date seem to have substantially underestimated the challenge and delayed the identification and implementation of effective and comprehensive decarbonization pathways.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-dream-of-100-renewables-assessed-by-heard-et-al/ The dream of 100% renewables assessed by Heard et al] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 12 Apr 2017<br />
: Discussion of Heard et al paper<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy Is it the right target? Is it even possible?] David Roberts; Vox; 4 Apr 2017<br />
: Imagine powering civilization entirely with energy from renewable sources: wind, sun, water (hydroelectricity), naturally occurring heat (geothermal), and plants. No coal mines, oil wells, pipelines, or coal trains. No greenhouse gas emissions, car exhaust, or polluted streams. No wars over oil, dependence on foreign suppliers, or resource shortages.<br />
<br />
: Sounds nice, right?<br />
<br />
: A growing number of activists say it is within reach. The idea has inspired ambitious commitments from an increasing number of cities, including Madison, Wisconsin, San Diego, and Salt Lake City. Advocates are pushing states to support the goal. Clean-energy enthusiasts frequently claim that we can go bigger, that it’s possible for the whole world to run on renewables — we merely lack the “political will.” So, is it true? Do we know how get to an all-renewables system? Not yet. Not really. Current modeling strongly suggests that we will need a broader portfolio of low-carbon options, including nuclear and possibly coal or natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), to get deep cuts in carbon.<br />
<br />
[https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.]<br />
David Roberts; Vox; 7 Apr 2017<br />
: Reasons for skepticism, reasons for optimism, and some tentative conclusions.<br />
<br />
: Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons. So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient? That is the core of the dispute over 100 percent renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS. In this post I’m going to discuss three papers that examine the subject, try to draw a few tentative conclusions, and issue a plea for open minds and flexibility.<br />
<br />
[http://seekerblog.com/2016/01/17/energiewende-and-caliwende-the-heavy-cost-of-ideology/ Energiewende and Caliwende – the Heavy Cost of Ideology] Seeker Blog; 17 Jan 2016<br />
<br />
[https://www.jpmorgan.com/cm/BlobServer/Brave_New_World_-_Annual_energy_piece.pdf A Brave New World - deep decarbonisation of energy grids] J.P.Morgan; 19 Oct 2015<br />
: we focus on Germany and its Energiewende plan (deep de-carbonization of the electricity grid in which 80% of demand is met by renewable energy), and on a California version we refer to as Caliwende. We compare these systems to the current electricity mix, and to a balanced system with a mix of renewable and nuclear energy<br />
<br />
: Our primary conclusions:<br />
* A critical part of any analysis of high-renewable systems is the cost of backup thermal power and/or storage needed to meet demand during periods of low renewable generation. These costs are substantial; as a result, levelized costs of wind and solar are not the right tools to use in assessing the total cost of a high-renewable system<br />
* Emissions. High-renewable grids reduce CO2 emissions by 65%-70% in Germany and 55%-60% in California vs. the current grid. Reason: backup thermal capacity is idle for much of the year <br />
* Costs. High-renewable grid costs per MWh are 1.9x the current system in Germany, and 1.5x in California. Costs fall to 1.6x in Germany and 1.2x in California assuming long-run “learning curve” declines in wind, solar and storage costs, higher nuclear plant costs and higher natural gas fuel costs <br />
* Storage. The cost of time-shifting surplus renewable generation via storage has fallen, but its cost, intermittent utilization and energy loss result in higher per MWh system costs when it is added <br />
* Nuclear. Balanced systems with nuclear power have lower estimated costs and CO2 emissions than high-renewable systems. However, there’s enormous uncertainty regarding the actual cost of nuclear power in the US and Europe, rendering balanced system assessments less reliable. Nuclear power is growing in Asia where plant costs are 20%-30% lower, but political, historical, economic, regulatory and cultural issues prevent these observations from being easily applied outside of Asia <br />
* Location and comparability. Germany and California rank in the top 70th and 90th percentiles with respect to their potential wind and solar energy (see Appendix I). However, actual wind and solar energy productivity is higher in California (i.e., higher capacity factors), which is the primary reason that Energiewende is more expensive per MWh than Caliwende. Regions without high quality wind and solar irradiation may find that grids dominated by renewable energy are more costly <br />
* What-ifs. National/cross-border grid expansion, storing electricity in electric car batteries, demand management and renewable energy overbuilding are often mentioned as ways of reducing the cost of high-renewable systems. However, each relies to some extent on conjecture, insufficient empirical support and/or incomplete assessments of related costs <br />
<br />
[http://www.thirdway.org/report/the-climate-challenge-can-renewables-really-do-it-alone The Climate Challenge: Can Renewables Really do it Alone?] Josh Freed, Matt Bennett, Matt Goldberg; Third Way think-tank; 16 Dec 2015<br />
: tl;dr: no<br />
<br />
[https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/can-you-make-a-wind-turbine-without-fossil-fuels-2/ Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?] Robert Wilson; Carbon Counter; 11 Jun 2015<br />
: fossil fuel requirements and CO2 emissions of steel & concrete production - relevant to nuclear etc also<br />
<br />
: THIS POST ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE<br />
<br />
[http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf Limitations of 'Renewable' Energy] Leo Smith MA (Electrical sciences); (self-published)<br />
:* Introduction<br />
:* The three necessary concepts<br />
:* What is energy and power density, and why is it important?<br />
:* The important problem of intermittency<br />
:* What is dispatch, and why is it important?<br />
::* Nuclear power, dispatch and co-operation with intermittent renewables<br />
::* Dispatching with hydro electricity or pumped storage<br />
::* Dispatching with fossil fuelled power stations<br />
:* Capacity factor, and cost benefit analysis<br />
::* Where capacity factor originated<br />
::* The cost of variability<br />
::* Deriving costs of electrical generation<br />
::* Costing mixed grids of medium intermittent renewable content<br />
::* Indirect social, financial, resource and environmental costs of intermittency<br />
:* The real economics of nuclear power.<br />
::* Safety, waste disposal, and decommissioning<br />
* A pessimistic view?<br />
<br />
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/climate-carbon-renewables.html Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat] EDUARDO PORTER; N Y Times; 7 Nov 2017<br />
: ... as climate diplomats gather this week in Bonn, Germany, for the 23rd Conference of the Parties under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, I would like to point their attention to a different, perhaps gloomier statistic: the world’s carbon intensity of energy.<br />
<br />
: The term refers to a measure of the amount of CO2 spewed into the air for each unit of energy consumed. It offers some bad news: It has not budged since that chilly autumn day in Kyoto 20 years ago. Even among the highly industrialized nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the carbon intensity of energy has declined by a paltry 4 percent since then, according to the International Energy Agency.<br />
<br />
: This statistic, alone, puts a big question mark over the strategies deployed around the world to replace fossil energy. In a nutshell: Perhaps renewables are not the answer.<br />
<br />
: Over the past 10 years, governments and private investors have collectively spent $2 trillion on infrastructure to draw electricity from the wind and the sun, according to estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Environmental Progress, a nonprofit that advocates nuclear power as an essential tool in the battle against climate change, says that exceeds the total cost of all nuclear plants built to date or under construction, adjusted for inflation.<br />
<br />
: Capacity from renewable sources has grown by leaps and bounds, outpacing growth from all other sources — including coal, natural gas and nuclear power — in recent years. Solar and wind capacity installed in 2015 was more than 10 times what the International Energy Agency had forecast a decade before.<br />
<br />
: Still, except for very limited exceptions, all this wind and sun has not brought about much decarbonization. Indeed, it has not added much clean power to the grid.<br />
<br />
: Environmental Progress performed an analysis of the evolution of the carbon intensity of energy in 68 countries since 1965. It found no correlation between the additions of solar and wind power and the carbon intensity of energy: Despite additions of renewable capacity, carbon intensity remained flat.<br />
<br />
[[File:Proportion clean energy hydro+nuclear v renewables by country NY Times.png]]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/ The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid] James Temple; MIT Technology Review; 27 Jul 2018<br />
: Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.<br />
<br />
== Resource requirements of renewables ==<br />
<br />
=== Netherlands (Metabolic) study ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.metabolic.nl/publications/metal-demand-renewable-electricity-generation-netherlands/ METAL DEMANDFOR RENEWABLE ELECTRICITYGENERATION IN THE NETHERLANDS] Pieter van Exter et al; Metabolic; 2018<br />
: The current global supply of several critical metals is insufficient to transition to a renewable energy system. Calculations for the Netherlands show that production of wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV) solar panels already requires a significant share of the annual global production of some critical metals.Looking at the global scale, scenarios in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement require the global production of some metals to grow at least twelvefold towards 2050, compared to today’s output. Specifically, the demand for neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium stands out. This calculation does not include the demand for these specific metals in other applications, such as electric vehicles or consumer electronics.<br />
<br />
[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3mavb/we-dont-mine-enough-rare-earth-metals-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energy We Don't Mine Enough Rare Earth Metals to Replace Fossil Fuels With Renewable Energy] Nafeez Ahmed; Vice Motherboard; 12 Dec 2018<br />
: Rare earth metals are used in solar panels and wind turbines—as well as electric cars and consumer electronics. We don't recycle them, and there's not enough to meet growing demand.<br />
<br />
: A new scientific study supported by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure warns that the renewable energy industry could be about to face a fundamental obstacle: shortages in the supply of rare metals.<br />
<br />
: To meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement, renewable energy production has to scale up fast. This means that global production of several rare earth minerals used in solar panels and wind turbines—especially neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium—must grow twelvefold by 2050.<br />
<br />
: But according to the new study by Dutch energy systems company Metabolic, the “current global supply of several critical metals is insufficient to transition to a renewable energy system.”<br />
<br />
: The study focuses on demand for rare metals in the Netherlands and extrapolates this to develop a picture of how global trends are likely to develop.<br />
<br />
: “If the rest of the world would develop renewable electricity capacity at a comparable pace with the Netherlands, a considerable shortage would arise,” the study finds. This doesn’t include other applications of rare earth metals in other electronics industries (rare earth metals are widely used in smartphones, for example). “When other applications (such as electric vehicles) are also taken into consideration, the required amount of certain metals would further increase.”<br />
<br />
: Demand for rare metals is pitched to rise exponentially across the world, and not just due to renewables. Demand is most evident in “consumer electronics, military applications, and other technical equipment in industrial applications. The growth of the global middle class from 1 billion to 3 billion people will only further accelerate this growth.”<br />
<br />
: But the study did not account for those other industries. This means the actual problem could be far more intractable. In 2017, a study in Nature found that a range of minerals essential for smartphones, laptops, electric cars and even copper wiring could face supply shortages in coming decades.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21359 Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance] Saleem H. Ali; Nature; 16 Mar 2017 ''(paywalled)''<br />
: Successful delivery of the United Nations sustainable development goals and implementation of the Paris Agreement requires technologies that utilize a wide range of minerals in vast quantities. Metal recycling and technological change will contribute to sustaining supply, but mining must continue and grow for the foreseeable future to ensure that such minerals remain available to industry. New links are needed between existing institutional frameworks to oversee responsible sourcing of minerals, trajectories for mineral exploration, environmental practices, and consumer awareness of the effects of consumption. Here we present, through analysis of a comprehensive set of data and demand forecasts, an interdisciplinary perspective on how best to ensure ecologically viable continuity of global mineral supply over the coming decades.<br />
<br />
== Actual 100% renewable installations ==<br />
<br />
''See [http://scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Energy_mix#Mini-grids_.2F_small_100.25_renewables_projects:_Tasmania.2C_El_Hierro.2C_Ta.27u_etc Small Renewables Projects]''</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=File:Greenpeace_energy_revolution_2012.pdf&diff=5493File:Greenpeace energy revolution 2012.pdf2022-08-03T23:45:47Z<p>Sisussman: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=100%25_renewables&diff=5492100% renewables2022-08-03T23:43:16Z<p>Sisussman: /* Greenpeace */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 2]] <br />
[[Category: 100% renewables]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
There are various claims that individual countries, or even the whole world, could obtain all their electricity - or even their whole energy supplies - from various combinations of low-carbon "renewable" sources, excluding nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and, usually, biomass. Reasons given for excluding nuclear energy range from general unquantified concerns about "safety", claims that nuclear is not a low-carbon source, and assertion that use of nuclear energy will lead to nuclear war.<br />
<br />
All proposed scenarios depend heavily on intermittent sources of renewable energy and can be categorised by how they propose to try to solve the problem of matching intermittent supplies to demand, and to what extent they quantify the measures they propose to do this. At one extreme Greenpeace based its 2012 [[#Greenpeace|energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution]] on an assumption that the IT industry would somehow come up with a way of making demand match supply. At the other extreme [[#Zero Carbon Britain|Zero Carbon Britain]] offers a detailed, quantified plan based on converting excess intermittent electricity to storable chemical fuels. Between these extremes are proposals which depend on more or less plausible combinations of very long distance transmission of huge amounts of energy, prodigious amounts of storage and/or dispatchable hydro.<br />
<br />
Few of these proposals have been published in the scientific literature or by recognised expert bodies. Of those which have, and which have been examined by the IPCC and other experts, none has been found to be generally satisfactory.<br />
<br />
== Jacobson et al ==<br />
<br />
The best-known proponent of what he calls "100% WWS" (100% Wind, Water and Sun) is [[Mark Z. Jacobson]].<br />
Jacobson is a Professor at Stanford University and a recognised expert on the effects on climate of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol aerosols] - fine solid particles or liquid droplets suspended in the atmosphere.<br />
<br />
Jacobson has in recent years advocated 100% renewables energy scenarios for the United States and, later, worldwide. His proposals have been enthusiastically received by politicians, celebrities and environmental organisations, but widely criticised by energy experts and commentators. Most notoriously when Renewables expert Christopher Clack and 20 others published a paper criticising and rebutting Jacobson's claims Jacobson responded by suing the National Academy of Sciences for publishing the paper, and the Clack - the only author without institutional backing - personally for $10Million.<br />
<br />
Jacobson rejects nuclear energy partly because he claims that expanding nuclear energy will inevitably lead to nuclear war causing cities to burn, releasing CO2.<br />
<br />
== Breyer / Lappeenranta University of Technology ==<br />
<br />
Another 100% renewables plan is by Christian Breyer and colleages at the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland.<br />
[[Breyer-LUT]]<br />
<br />
== Zero Carbon Britain (CAT) ==<br />
<br />
The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT)'s [http://zerocarbonbritain.org/ Zero Carbon Britain] includes a plan for producing reliable electricity supplies using intermittent renewables, converting excess electricity into methane which can be stored and converted back into electricity when needed.<br />
<br />
== French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME) ==<br />
<br />
French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME)'s [http://www.actu-environnement.com/media/pdf/rapport100pourcentsENR_comite.pdf Vers un mix eléctrique 100% renouvelable en 2050] (and response "[http://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/articles/pdf_files/temoignages/Analyse%20rapport%20ADEME%20tout%20renouvelables_G%20Sapy.pdf Analysis and comments on the report: towards a mix 100% renewables in 2050]" - in French).<br />
<br />
=== Commentary & criticism of ZCB, ADEME etc ===<br />
Critical analysis of ADEME and CAT/ZCB scenarios with particular reference to energy storage in: [http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-storage-and-power-to-methane/ Renewable Energy Storage and Power-To-Methane] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters blog; 25 Jun 2015<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-renewables-future-a-summary-of-findings/ The Renewables Future – A Summary of Findings] Roger Andrews; 13 Aug 2015<br />
<br />
== Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill: Australia ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512002169 Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market] Ben Elliston, Mark Diesendorf, Iain MacGill<br />
<br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987376/dispelling_the_nuclear_baseload_myth_nothing_renewables_cant_do_better.html Dispelling the nuclear 'baseload' myth: nothing renewables can't do better!] Mark Diesendorf; The Ecologist; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: The main claim used to justify nuclear is that it's the only low carbon power source that can supply 'reliable, baseload electricity', writes Mark Diesendorf - unlike wind and solar. But not only can renewables supply baseload power, they can do something far more valuable: supply power flexibly according to demand. Now nuclear power really is redundant.<br />
<br />
=== Commentary & criticism of Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill ===<br />
<br />
[http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/06/02/critique-100pc-renewables-edm/ Critique of the proposal for 100% renewable energy electricity supply in Australia] Dr Ted Trainer; Brave New Climate blog; 2 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== Elliston and Riesz ==<br />
<br />
[http://ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/PES%20APPEEC%202015%20-%20Elliston-Riesz-NearSolutions-2015-07-14a.pdf Future high renewable electricity scenarios – Insights from mapping the diversity of near least cost portfolios] B. Elliston, J. Riesz<br />
: This paper reports on future electricity generation scenarios modelled using NEMO, a model that applies a genetic algorithm to optimise a mix of simulated generators to meet hourly demand profiles, to the required reliability standard, at lowest overall industry cost. The modelling examined the least and near least cost technology portfolios for a scenario that limited emissions to approximately one quarter of those from the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) at present. It was found that all the near least cost solutions (within 15% of the least cost solution) involved wind capacity in the range of 31-51 GW, with 98.8% of these near least cost portfolios having at least 35 GW of wind installed. In contrast, the near least cost solutions consistently involved much lower quantities of PV, with 90% of the near least cost portfolios having less than 4.9 GW of installed PV capacity. This suggests that policies to promote high levels of wind deployment and grid integration are likely to be important for achieving low cost, low emissions outcomes, while policies to promote significant PV deployment may be less warranted in the absence of cost effective supporting technologies, such as battery storage or significant demand side participation.<br />
: 3/4 of peer-rev'd refs are author's own. Other is BZE which proposes Australia abandon aviation by 2020. - Oscar Archer @ActinideAge<br />
<br />
== Greenpeace / Brainpool ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/essays/2987195/wind_power_with_windgas_is_cheaper_and_greener_than_hinkley_point_c_nuclear_plant.html Wind power with 'windgas' is cheaper and greener than Hinkley Point C nuclear plant] Ecologist<br />
<br />
[http://www.energybrainpool.com/en/services/study-directory/studies-hinkley-point-c.html STUDIES ABOUT THE PLANNED BRITISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HINKLEY POINT C] Energy Brainpool<br />
<br />
*Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: At a lower cost / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (German only)<br />
* Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: A cost comparison / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (English)<br />
* Effects of Hinkley Point C on the german electricity market / Study on behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, July 2015 (German only)<br />
* Level of public funding of Hinkley Point C / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, June 2015 (German only)<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/pressematerial/Hinkley_Point/20160121_Study_Windgas_HPC_English.pdf WIND POWER AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEAR POWER FROM HINKLEY POINT C: A COST COMPARISON] A short analysis commissioned by Greenpeace Energy in Germany<br />
<br />
[http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2014/10/27/what-happens-when-the-wind-doesnt-blow/ What happens when the wind doesn’t blow?] Southern Alliance for Clean Energy blog<br />
<br />
== Greenpeace ==<br />
<br />
[https://scienceforsustainability.org/docs/energy/plans/renewables/Greenpeace/Greenpeace_energy_revolution_2012.pdf energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution] 2012<br />
{{q|'''Technological opportunities''' Changes to the power system by 2050 will create huge business opportunities for the information, communication and technology (ICT) sector. A smart grid has power supplied from a diverse range of sources and places and it relies on the gathering and analysis of a lot of data. Smart grids require software, hardware and data networks capable of delivering data quickly, and of responding to the information that they contain. Several important ICT players are racing to smarten up energy grids across the globe and hundreds of companies could be involved with smart grids.<br />
<br />
There are numerous IT companies offering products and services to manage and monitor energy. These include IBM, Fujitsu, Google, Microsoft and Cisco. These and other giants of the telecommunications and technology sector have the power to make the grid smarter, and to move us faster towards a clean energy future. Greenpeace has initiated the ‘Cool IT’ campaign to put pressure on the IT sector to make such technologies a reality.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2015/Energy-Revolution-2015-Full.pdf energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution] 2015<br />
: 5th Edition<br />
* Project manager and lead author Dr. Sven Teske, Greenpeace International<br />
* Global Wind Energy Council steve sawyer<br />
* SolarPowerEurope oliver schäfer<br />
* research & co-authors<br />
* Overall Modelling: dlr, institute of engineering thermodynamics, systems analysis and technology assessment, stuttgart, germany: dr. thomas Pregger, dr. sonja simon, dr. tobias naegler<br />
<br />
[http://www.demandenergyequality.org/2030-energy-scenario.html 2030 Energy Scenarios]<br />
[http://www.mediafire.com/download/r79m6jakihb0ud7/Greenpeace_2030_Public_Sept2015.pdf report]<br />
:In early 2015 we were commissioned by Greenpeace UK to design and test an ambitious, low carbon 2030 energy scenario using the 'Smart Household Energy Demand (SHED) model. It shows that it is possible for the UK's power system to be nearly 90% renewably delivered by 2030, while electrifying 25% of all heating demand - and putting 12.7 million electric cars on the road. But only if we can cut demand for space heating by 57% in the next 15 years - a major challenge.<br />
[http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/09/21/4-ways-the-uk-can-get-almost-all-its-power-from-renewables/ 4 ways the UK can get almost all its power from renewables – without Hinkley]<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Climate-Reports/Energy-Revolution-2015/ Energy Revolution 2015]<br />
<br />
== Skeptical science ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374 Can renewables provide baseload power?] based on <br />
* [http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf DO WE NEED BASE-LOAD POWER STATIONS?] Diesendorf/EnergyScience Coalition<br />
* US National Renewable Energy Laboratory [http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html] [http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/wwsis.html]<br />
* [http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/ Ecofys] [http://www.skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-by-2050.html report],<br />
* [http://www.skepticalscience.com/plan-100-percent-energy-wind-water-solar.html Jacobson & Delucci] [http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf (part 1)]<br />
* [http://www.rethinking2050.eu/fileadmin/documents/ReThinking2050_full_version_final.pdf European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)] * broken link *<br />
* [http://diggy.ruc.dk//bitstream/1800/4386/1/A_RENEWABLE_ENERGY_AND_HYDROGEN_SCENARIO_FOR_NORTHERN_EUROPE.pdf A renewable energy and hydrogen scenario for northern Europe] Sorensen<br />
* [http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/ ZCB]<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544208000959 Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050] Lund and Mathiessen; Energy; 2009 (paywall)<br />
* [http://www.die-klima-allianz.de/wp-content/uploads/uba_2010.pdf Energieziel 2050: 100% Strom auserneuerbaren Quellen] Klaus 2010 (Germany)<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261910003703 How to achieve a 100% RES electricity supply for Portugal?] Krajačić et al; Applied Energy; 2010 - 5th Dubrovnik (hydro, storage - via H2?)<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191000070X The first step towards a 100% renewable energy-system for Ireland] Connolly et al; Applied Energy; 2010 - 5th Dubrovnik ("three different 100% renewable energy-systems were created with each focusing on a different resource: biomass, hydrogen, and electricity. These energy-systems were compared so that the benefits from each could be used to create an ‘optimum’ scenario called combination. Although the results illustrate a potential 100% renewable energy-system for Ireland, they have been obtained based on numerous assumptions. Therefore, these will need to be improved in the future before a serious roadmap can be defined for Ireland’s renewable energy transition")<br />
* [http://www.skepticalscience.com/Zero-Carbon-Australia-2020.html Zero Carbon Australia]<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510001850 A 100% renewable electricity generation system for New Zealand utilising hydro, wind, geothermal and biomass resources] Mason et al.; Energy Policy; 2010 (paywall) (60% hydro 32% ff - plan adds wind, geothermal, uses hydro storage)<br />
<br />
== Krugman ==<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/opinion/planet-on-the-ballot.html Planet on the Ballot] Paul Krugman; NY Times; 29 Feb 2016<br />
<br />
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432262/paul-krugman-renewable-energy-folly-coal-and-fossil-fuels-still-necessary Paul Krugman Needs an Energy Reality Check] Robert Bryce; National Review; 3 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
== Chivers / Two Energy Futures ==<br />
[http://www.twoenergyfutures.net/ Two Energy Futures] ''(links in site don't work - reported to Danny Chivers 03/05/2019)''<br />
<br />
[http://newint.org/blog/2015/08/15/material-requirements/ The stuff problem] Danny Chivers; New Internationalist blog; <br />
:+links<br />
<br />
== Scott Cato / South West England ==<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/2015/04/17/power-to-transform/ Power To Transform] index page<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MSC-SW-Energy-leaflet-V2_pages.pdf Summary leaflet – easy to read pages]<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MSC-SW-Energy-leaflet-V2_spreads.pdf Summary leaflet – full spread]<br />
<br />
: A report commissioned by Molly Scott Cato MEP reveals:<br />
* The region has the renewable energy resources to meet more than 100% of its total energy needs, including replacement of liquid fuels.<br />
* A move to a renewable energy economy has the potential to create 122,000 jobs, an increase in employment of 4.5% across the region.<br />
* One third of energy needs can be met from marine and inshore estuarine tidal energy, with the remaining two thirds from onshore renewables.<br />
* The cost of delivering 100% renewable energy to the region would be around £60 billion. The equivalent cost of delivering 100% of energy needs from nuclear would be around £83 billion.<br />
* Renewables offer opportunities for ushering in a Smart Grid Energy Storage system that would balance the intermittency of some renewable technologies<br />
* Local Smart Grids developed in conjunction with renewable energy resources would reduce the need for large scale pylons and transmission systems. In the South West we can demonstrate just how much better a society powered by clean, green energy would really be. As is so often the case, the right environmental choice will also ensure greater economic justice and help us build flourishing local economies. Locally produced renewable energy will bring a huge economic boost and new jobs and benefit in particular some of our more deprived rural economies. The South West of England has some of the world’s best renewable energy resources, in great abundance and great variety. All that holds us back from a renewable energy revolution and energy security is a failure of political will. Our politicians must progress beyond the fossil-fuel past into the sunny uplands of our shared renewable future.<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/The-power-to-transform-the-South-West_FINAL1.pdf The power to transform the South West: How to meet the region’s energy needs through renewable energy generation]<br />
: Researched and written by The Resilience Centre<br />
: Commissioned by Molly Scott Cato MEP<br />
: Funded by the Green/EFA group in the European Parliament<br />
# The South West region has the renewable energy resources to meet more than 100% of its total energy needs, including replacement of liquid fuels and electrifying railways.<br />
# We could generate 67,448,817 MWhrs/year of renewable energy as 42,690,806 MWehrs of electrical energy and 24,758,010 MWth of thermal energy (67,449 GWhrs/year) from 31,804 MW of Generating Capacity (thermal & electricity).<br />
# ''[the report omits a point 3]''<br />
# 34% of energy needs can be met from marine and inshore estuarine tidal energy, and 66% from onshore renewables.<br />
# To enable the devenopment of renewable energy generation we would suggest installing 12,051 MWe capacity of smart grid energy storage to balance intermittency of renewables and allow demand led local smart grids to be developed.<br />
# This energy storage would provide 19,281,000 MWhrs/year or 29% of energy as demand required. <br />
# An estimated 122,000 full time equivalent jobs could be created if we deliver and maintain this renewable energy generation regionally, an increase in employment of 4.5% for the region.<br />
# We estimate that the capital cost of delivering such a programme would be £59,484m, including £8,784m on Smart Grid energy storage. This is 72% of equivalent nuclear costs for delivering the same amount of energy.<br />
# The equivalent cost of delivering 100% of the South West energy needs from nuclear is £82,510m or 138% of the equivalent cost of delivering with renewable energy.<br />
# Renewables costs provide for a local smart grid with energy storage and flexibility to meet spikes and drops in demand and reduce need for large scale pylons and transmission systems.<br />
# Renewables costs include £500m/year investment in local/regional grid reinforcement and upgrade, equivalent to an increased annual expenditure on grid upgrade and management of 64% each year.<br />
# The potential annual value added for delivering the constrained renewable energy resources of the South West would be £4,286m/year, equivalent to an annual growth rate of 4.0% year on year and equivalent to 48% of the total value of the tourism industry and 87% of the aerospace and defence industry in the South West<br />
<br />
== UK National Infrastructure Commission ==<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-national-infrastructure-commissions-plan-for-a-renewable-uk/ The National Infrastructure Commission’s plan for a renewable UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 19 Jul 2018<br />
: The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) was launched by then-chancellor George Osborne in October 2015 to “think dispassionately and independently about Britain’s long-term infrastructure needs in areas like transport, energy, communication, flood defence and the like.” Well, the NIC has now thought dispassionately and independently about energy and has concluded that the UK can meet its 2050 decarbonization goals with either a mostly nuclear or mostly renewable generation mix, but that “wind and solar could deliver the same generating capacity as nuclear for the same price, and would be a better choice because there was less risk”. Here we take a brief look at this renewables-beats-nuclear option to see whether it might work.<br />
<br />
== USA ==<br />
[http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/ Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar] Mike Conley & Tim Maloney; 17 Apr 2015<br />
<br />
[http://uk.businessinsider.com/wind-turbines-to-power-earth-2016-9 Here's how much of the US would need to be covered in wind turbines to power the nation]<br />
Leanna Garfield ; Business Insider UK; 26 Sep 2016<br />
: Though the US invested $14.5 billion in wind-power project installations last year, wind farms still provide less than 5% of the nation's energy, according to the American Wind Energy Association. AWEA's manager of industry data analysis, John Hensley, did the following math: 4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines. In terms of land use, those 583,000 turbines would take up about the total land mass of Rhode Island, Hensley says, because wind projects typically require 0.74 acres of land per megawatt produced.<br />
: Hensley considered that the average wind turbine has an output of 2 megawatts of power and is 40% efficient. <br />
: For comparison, solar projects operate at an average of 20% efficiency<br />
: When you multiply a wind turbine's average potential (2 megawatts) by its 40% annual energy efficiency, 365 days a year, you get Hensley's estimate of the megawatt-hours of energy production each turbine can produce (7,008).<br />
<br />
=== David Roberts ===<br />
[http://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12721206/eastern-us-30-percent-renewables The Eastern US could get a third of its power from renewables within 10 years. Theoretically.] David Roberts; Vox; 31 Aug 2016<br />
: Model of Eastern Interconnect can accommodate 30 percent "variable generation" (VG)<br />
<br />
[http://www.biodiversivist.com/2016/09/david-roberts-on-latest-nrel-30-wind.html David Roberts on the latest NREL 30% wind and solar study] Russ Finley; Biodiversivist; 5 Sep 2016<br />
: consider this article to be a comment under David's article: The Eastern US could get a third of its power from renewables within 10years. Theoretically, which has no comment field.<br />
<br />
== Australia ==<br />
<br />
[http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/resources/assets/1708BlakersREAust.pdf 100% renewable electricity in Australia] Andrew Blakers, Bin Lu, Matthew Stocks; Energy; 29 May 2017<br />
: An hourly energy balance analysis is presented of the Australian National Electricity Market in a 100% renewable energy scenario, in which wind and photovoltaics (PV) provides about 90% of the annual electricity demand and existing hydroelectricity and biomass provides the balance. Heroic assumptions about future technology development are avoided by only including technology that is being deployed in large quantities (>10 Gigawatts per year), namely PV and wind.<br />
<br />
: Additional energy storage and stronger interconnection between regions was found to be necessary for stability. Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) constitutes 97% of worldwide electricity storage, and is adopted in this work. Many sites for closed loop PHES storage have been found in Australia. Distribution of PV and wind over 10e100 million hectares, utilising high voltage transmission, accesses different weather systems and reduces storage requirements (and overall cost).<br />
<br />
: The additional cost of balancing renewable energy supply with demand on an hourly rather than annual basis is found to be modest: AU$25e30/MWh (US$19e23/MWh). Using 2016 prices prevailing in Australia, the levelised cost of renewable electricity (LCOE) with hourly balancing is estimated to be AU$93/MWh (US$70/MWh). LCOE is almost certain to decrease due to rapidly falling cost of wind and PV<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/100-renewable-electricity-in-australia/ 100% renewable electricity in Australia] Euan Mearns / Roger Young; Energy Matters; 1 Nov 2017<br />
: The object of his post, which was originally submitted as a comment, is an academic study published by Blakers et al that claims Australia can become a 100% renewables nation at relatively low cost. Roger Young questions the modelling work presented and asserts that the storage requirement has been under-estimated by a factor of 12 which naturally has a profound impact on the cost estimates.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/australia-energy-storage-and-the-blakers-study/ Australia, energy storage and the Blakers study] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 13 Nov 2017<br />
: Roger Young’s recent post focused on the question of whether the energy storage requirements listed in Prof. Andrew Blakers’ study “100% renewable electricity in Australia” were realistic, but at the time no hard numbers on exactly how much storage Prof. Blakers’ scenarios would require were available. I have now come up with some reasonably hard numbers by applying Blakers’ scenarios to recent Australian grid data. Because the grid data cover a period of only a few months these numbers are not fully diagnostic, but they are sufficient to confirm Roger Young’s conclusion that the Blakers study seriously underestimates storage requirements.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wind-and-solar-on-thursday-island/ Wind and solar on Thursday Island] Roger Andrews / Mark; Energy Matters; 8 Feb 2018<br />
: In this post Mark documents the results of wind and solar data from Thursday Island that leaves him sceptical of the claims made by Prof. Andrew Blakers that wind generation spikes in Queensland will offset wind generation lulls in the rest of Australia<br />
<br />
: While rummaging around the internet to see if I could find any information on the performance of wind farms in Queensland (and especially in Far North Queensland – Andrew Blakers’ supposed panacea for the rather more correlated wind farm outputs in the NEM area), I came across Thursday Island, which installed a small two turbine wind farm 20 years ago. Thursday Island is about as FNQ as you can get – about 25 miles into the Torres Strait that separates Australia and Papua New Guinea. The bonanza came when I encountered a pamphlet from Harwell complete with charts showing monthly performance of the wind farm and its contribution to local power demand.<br />
<br />
== IRENA 2018 ==<br />
[http://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Apr/IRENA_Report_GET_2018.pdf Global Energy Transformation] International Renewable Energy Agency; 2018<br />
: Renewable energy needs to be scaled up at least six times faster for the world to start to meet the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. <br />
<br />
: The historic climate accord from 2015 seeks, at minimum, to limit average global temperature rise to “well below 2°C” in the present century, compared to pre-industrial levels. Renewables, in combination with rapidly improving energy efficiency, form the cornerstone of a viable climate solution.<br />
<br />
: Keeping the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius (°C) is technically feasible. It would also be more economically, socially and environmentally beneficial than the path resulting from current plans and policies. However, the global energy system must undergo a profound transformation, from one largely based on fossil fuels to one that enhances efficiency and is based on renewable energy. Such a global energy transformation – seen as the culmination of the “energy transition” that is already happening in many countries – can create a world that is more prosperous and inclusive.<br />
<br />
=== Criticism of IRENA 2018 ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-to-save-the-world-from-climate-catastrophe-the-irena-study/ How to save the world from climate catastrophe – the IRENA study] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 20 Nov 2018<br />
<br />
: IRENA, the International Renewable Agency, has just published a study showing how the world can meet the not-to-exceed-2°C emissions goal set by the Paris Agreement. It’s not a 100% renewables study – it still includes a little oil, gas and nuclear – but it concludes, unsurprisingly, that a massive expansion of renewable energy in all sectors will be needed between now and 2050, along with major improvements in energy efficiency, to keep the Earth within its allowable carbon budget. The study provides information on the changes that will be needed to meet this goal but provides no specifics on how they are to be met. It estimates the costs of the changes at $120 trillion (~$4 trillion/year from now to 2050, or about 5% of total world GDP) but provides no specifics on where the money is to come from. It is nevertheless confident that this massive outlay will be “dwarfed by the benefits”.<br />
<br />
: The IRENA report contains 73 pages, only 10 of which (Analysis and Insights in Key Sectors, pp. 31-40) deal with the specifics of the changes that are needed to achieve IRENA’s proposed “energy transition”. But no information is provided on how these changes are to be achieved and whether they will work if they are. Simulation models, such as those used in the Jacobson, Lappeenranta and Blakers studies, are normally used to perform this task, but IRENA seems to have by-passed this step. It has simply estimated how much renewable energy and improved energy efficiency is needed to meet the 2°C emissions goal, and the costs thereof, and it presents these estimates as achievable solutions rather than targets.<br />
<br />
: REmap’s assumed energy efficiency improvements cut the world’s 2050 energy consumption by 40% over what it would otherwise have been<br />
<br />
: The REmap scenario envisions a doubling of electricity generation, achieved mostly by a massive expansion of wind and solar, coupled with a reduction in fossil fuel generation<br />
<br />
: The percentage of renewables in the mix increases from 24% to 85% between 2015 and 2050. The remaining generation consists of 4% nuclear and 10% gas<br />
<br />
:* Hydro capacity expands by 37.5% between 2015 and 2050 and pumped hydro capacity by a factor of 2.1 (note that capacity is again give in GW, not GWh). This is optimistic but not unreasonable.<br />
<br />
:* Onshore wind capacity expands by factor of 12.3. The feasibility of this is questionable. Onshore wind is already coming under attack for its visual and potential health impacts, and the scale of the additions (an annual average of 150GW, roughly twice the UK’s total installed capacity) far exceeds anything achieved to date.<br />
<br />
:* Offshore wind capacity expands by a factor of 43. Enough said.<br />
<br />
:* Solar PV capacity expands by a factor of 32, an average rate of 230 GW a year. The maximum annual rate achieved so far, with the assistance of generous subsidies, is 100 GW/year.<br />
<br />
:* CSP (concentrated solar power) capacity expands by a factor of 127 to 633GW, roughly twice Japan’s present installed capacity. As discussed in posts here and here CSP is a borderline failed technology.<br />
<br />
:* Bioenergy capacity expands by a factor of 3.2 to 384 GW. I don’t have enough information to say whether this is feasible or not.<br />
<br />
:* Geothermal capacity expands by a factor of 23 to 227 GW. As discussed in this post there aren’t enough high-temperature geothermal resources in the world to support this level of expansion.<br />
<br />
:* Others (marine, hybrid) expand by a factor of 2,937 to 881 GW, not far short of total installed capacity in the European Union. If two-thirds of it is tidal we are looking at approximately 2,500 Swansea-Bay-sized tidal lagoons.<br />
<br />
: The question here is whether the generation from this capacity mix will cover demand 24/365 in all parts of the world. Simulation models, such as those used in the Jacobson, Lappeenranta and Blakers studies, are normally used to perform this task, but IRENA seems to have bypassed this step altogether. It has simply estimated how much renewable energy and improved energy efficiency is needed to meet the 2°C emissions goal, and it presents these estimates as achievable solutions rather than targets. Whether they would cover global demand 24/365 is, however, questionable. Conditions will of course vary in different places, but with 41,500 TWh of annual generation the average load will be 5.4 TW – substantially more than the 3.5 TW of dispatchable generation, some of which will not be well-adapted for load following. Managing wind and solar surpluses and deficits could therefore pose a problem.<br />
<br />
: And how does IRENA propose to manage it? It devotes only two short paragraphs, neither of which tells us much, to the issue (note: VRE = Variable Renewable Energy):<br />
<br />
:: ''Investments will be needed for storage, transmission and distribution capacity, and for flexible generation and demand-response. Between 2015 and 2050, investments in these areas would add an estimated USD 9 trillion under the REmap Case (relative to the Reference Case). This investment would allow the system to accommodate 62% VRE while ensuring an adequate, stable and reliable electricity supply.''<br />
<br />
:: ''Support investment to enable infrastructure to integrate VRE and smart technologies (including batteries, smart charging for electric vehicles, blockchain, machine learning, use of “big data”) that have the potential to optimise extensive use of renewables to generate power.''<br />
<br />
: And how much storage capacity will there be? None is listed in Figure 6, but the Transport section (IRENA Figure 10) includes 12,380 GWh of EV battery storage, enough to keep the world in electricity for about two hours assuming 100% charge/discharge efficiency. According to IRENA this capacity will come from over 1 billion EVs.<br />
<br />
:: ''sales of electric vehicles, electric buses and electric two- and three-wheelers are growing. In 2017 around 3 million electric vehicles were on the road. Under the REmap Case, the number would increase to over 1 billion by 2050.''<br />
<br />
: But 12,380 GWh spread over 1 billion EVs gives an average of only 12.38 kWh/vehicle, so many of these vehicles will be two- and three-wheelers used for transportation in developing countries. Whether these vehicles can be counted on to discharge their batteries when the grid needs it is questionable. Whether owners of four-wheel EVs in developed countries can be counted on to discharge their batteries when the grid needs it questionable too.<br />
<br />
== Energy Matters ==<br />
<br />
Euan Mearns and Roger Andrews at the Energy Matters blog have posted analyses of various scenarios for achieving reliable electricity supplies from wind and solar energy.<br />
<br />
=== Wind + storage for peak-smoothing ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-dispatchable-wind-power/ The Cost of Dispatchable Wind Power] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: I calculate how much storage would be required to deliver the diurnal peaks in demand from dispatchable wind – pumped – storage – hydro. I’ve taken this approach for a number of reasons:<br />
* The daily demand peaks fetch the highest prices and supplying these peaks follows the traditional finance model for pumped storage hydro – buying low and selling high<br />
* Servicing the peaks as opposed to base load minimises the amount of storage required (the demand peaks represent 18% of total demand in March 2015)<br />
* Supplying the demand peaks in the UK from wind + storage will allow about 20 GW of conventional generation to be retired<br />
* Allowing the fossil fuel generators to supply base load allows them to run at optimum efficiency and to minimise their CO2 emissions per unit of electricity produced. By way of contingency it leaves the door open for an all-nuclear base load supply.<br />
<br />
=== Over-capacity and curtailment ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-quest-for-100-renewables-can-curtailment-replace-storage/ The quest for 100% renewables – can curtailment replace storage?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 23 Jun 2017<br />
: Previous Energy Matters posts have highlighted the prohibitive amounts of energy storage that are needed to make 100% intermittent renewables work. In this post I give the problem one last shot. Can storage requirements be reduced to manageable levels by producing more renewable energy than is needed to fill demand and curtailing the surpluses? The answer is no. Curtailment does indeed reduce storage requirements, but not to manageable levels. This would appear to eliminate the possibility of developing a grid powered 100% by intermittent renewables. Backup fossil fuel generation will always be needed to fill demand when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wind-blowing-nowhere/ Wind Blowing Nowhere] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 23 Jan 2015<br />
: In much of Europe energy policy is being formulated by policymakers who assume that combining wind generation over large areas will flatten out the spikes and fill in the troughs and thereby allow wind to be “harnessed to provide reliable electricity” as the European Wind Energy Association tells them it will:<br />
<br />
::The wind does not blow continuously, yet there is little overall impact if the wind stops blowing somewhere – it is always blowing somewhere else. Thus, wind can be harnessed to provide reliable electricity even though the wind is not available 100% of the time at one particular site.<br />
<br />
: Here we will review whether this assumption is valid. We will do so by progressively combining hourly wind generation data for 2013 for nine countries in Western Europe downloaded from the excellent data base compiled by Paul-Frederik Bach, paying special attention to periods when “the wind stops blowing somewhere”. The nine countries are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Germany, Spain and the UK, which together cover a land area of 2.3 million square kilometers and extend over distances of 2,000 kilometers east-west and 4,000 kilometers north-south:<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/quantifying-wind-surpluses-and-deficits-in-western-europe/ Quantifying wind surpluses and deficits in Western Europe] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 7 Nov 2018<br />
: This post updates my January 2015 Wind blowing nowhere post using 2016 rather than 2013 data. The 2016 data show the same features as the 2013 data, with high and low wind conditions extending over large areas and a decreasing level of correlation with distance between countries. The post also quantifies the surpluses and deficits created by high and low wind conditions in January 2016 in gigawatts. The results indicate that wind surpluses in Western European countries during windy periods will be too large to be exported to surrounding countries and that wind deficits during wind lulls will be too large to be covered by imports from surrounding countries. This casts further doubt on claims that wind surpluses and deficits in one region can be offset by transfers to and from another because the wind is always blowing somewhere.<br />
<br />
=== Offshore wind - more reliable? ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/can-offshore-wind-be-integrated-with-the-grid/ Can offshore wind be integrated with the grid?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 7 Jul 2017<br />
: This is absolutely, positively my last effort to find something good to say about wind power. Previous Energy Matters posts that highlight the difficulties of integrating intermittent wind power with the grid have been based dominantly on onshore wind data, but claims that offshore wind is significantly less erratic and will therefore be much easier to integrate with the grid have not been checked. This post reviews the question of whether it will. It finds that offshore wind is indeed less erratic than onshore wind but still nowhere near consistent enough to do away with the need for storage or conventional backup generation.<br />
<br />
=== Converting intermittent to reliable ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/grid-scale-storage-of-renewable-energy-the-impossible-dream/ Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 20 Nov 2017<br />
<br />
: The utopian ambition for variable renewable energy is to convert it into uniform firm capacity using energy storage. Here we present an analysis of actual UK wind and solar generation for the whole of 2016 at 30 minute resolution and calculate the grid-scale storage requirement. In order to deliver 4.6 GW uniform and firm RE supply throughout the year, from 26 GW of installed capacity, requires 1.8 TWh of storage. We show that this is both thermodynamically and economically implausible to implement with current technology.<br />
<br />
=== Chile ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-valhalla-solar-pumped-hydro-project/ The Valhalla solar/pumped hydro project] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 27 Dec 2017<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-chiles-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/ How Chile’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 3 Jan 2018<br />
: If pumped hydro plants that use the sea as the lower reservoir can be put into large-scale operation Chile would be able to install at least 10 TWh of pumped hydro storage along its northern coast. With it Chile could convert enough intermittent solar into dispatchable form to replace all of its current fossil fuel generation, and at a levelized cost of electricity (provisionally estimated at around $80/MWh) that would be competitive with most other dispatchable generation sources. Northern Chile’s impressive pumped hydro potential is a result of the existence of natural depressions at elevations of 500m or more adjacent to the coast that can hold very large volumes of sea water and which form ready-made upper reservoirs.<br />
<br />
=== California ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-californias-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/ How California’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 17 Jan 2018<br />
: In my recent Chile post I outlined a plan under which Chile’s electricity sector could go 100% renewable by developing the pumped hydro storage potential of the Atacama Desert. In this post I consider whether California might not be able to do the same thing by developing the pumped hydro storage potential that exists just across the border in Northern Mexico. The conclusion is that it probably could, but not until California legislators recognize that megawatt-hour batteries will not supply the terawatt-hours of energy storage that will be needed to support an all-renewables grid, which so far they show no signs of doing.<br />
<br />
=== Storage ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/battery-storage-in-perspective-solving-1-of-the-problem/ Battery storage* in perspective – solving 1% of the problem] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 19 Feb 2018<br />
: The energy world is fixated on the “huge” amounts of battery storage presently being installed to back up slowly-increasing levels of intermittent renewables generation. The feeling seems to be that as soon as enough batteries are installed to take care of daily supply/demand imbalances we will no longer need conventional dispatchable energy – solar + wind + storage will be able to do it all. Here I take another look at the realities of the situation using what I hope are some telling visual examples of what battery storage will actually do for us. As discussed in previous posts it will get us no closer to the vision of a 100% renewables-powered world than we are now.<br />
<br />
: *Note: “Battery storage” covers all storage technologies currently being considered, including thermal, compressed air, pumped hydro etc. Batteries are, however, the flavor of the moment and are expected to capture the largest share of the future energy storage market.<br />
<br />
=== Australia ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-in-australia-snowy-2-0-vs-sea-water/ Pumped hydro energy storage in Australia – Snowy 2.0 vs. sea water] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 12 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
: To support a 100% renewable electricity sector Australia will need approximately 10 terawatt-hours of long-term energy storage. The multi-billion-dollar Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project will supply only 0.35 terawatt-hours, a small fraction of this, and conventional pumped hydro potential elsewhere in Australia, including Tasmania, will not fill the gap. This post addresses the question of whether Australia might not do better to pursue sea water pumped hydro instead of Snowy 2.0-type projects. Sea water pumped hydro potential in Australia is limited by the lack of suitable coastal topography, but there are sites capable of storing very large amounts of sea water at distances of more than 20km from the coast. The question is whether these sites can be developed and operated at acceptable cost.<br />
<br />
=== Demand Response ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/why-demand-response-wont-work/ Why “demand response” won’t work] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 17 May 2018<br />
: Those who envision a world powered entirely by renewables assume that “demand response” will play a key role in matching intermittent generation to future demand. In this post I evaluate historic demand data from two quite different grids – Denmark and California – to determine what factors have affected demand there and how large these effects are. In both cases demand changes are closely correlated with rapidly rising electricity prices, but these have not resulted in significant demand reductions in Denmark or, arguably, any demand reductions at all in California. Attempts to flatten out California’s “duck curve” have also been unsuccessful despite punitive electricity rates during high-demand periods. The conclusion is that financial incentives and disincentives will not result in the levels of demand response necessary to support an all-renewables world.<br />
<br />
=== Scotland ===<br />
<br />
[https://euanmearns.com/scotland-gagging-on-wind-power/ Scotland Gagging on Wind Power] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 12 Jan 2015<br />
: Discussion of Scottish renewables (mainly wind) capacity development<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wwf-masters-of-spin/ WWF – Masters of Spin] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 5 Jan 2015<br />
: The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) issued a press release on 3rd January detailing Scottish renewable energy production for 2014. The press release is based on data provided by WeatherEnergy, an organisation whose business I have yet to establish*. Here’s how my local Press and Journal reported the story:<br />
<br />
: Wind turbines generated enough power to supply more than 100% of Scottish households on 25 out of the 31 days of December. Throughout the year wind provided enough power for the electrical needs of 98% of Scottish households with solar power meeting two-thirds or more of household electricity or hot water needs, it added.<br />
<br />
: In fact what this should say is:<br />
<br />
:: Our computer model of wind and sunshine distribution suggests that wind turbines may have provided 35% and solar photovoltaics 0.44% of Scotland’s electricity in 2014.<br />
<br />
[https://www.gq.com/story/scotland-leads-renewable-energy Why Can't America Follow Scotland to 100 Percent Renewable Energy?] Luke Darby; GQ; 31 Jan 2020<br />
: Scotland is officially on track to run on 100 percent renewable energy by the end of 2020, just in time to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference later this year. The country has been aggressively leading the way in transitioning off of fossil fuels. It closed its last coal plant in 2016 and has vastly expanded its wind and solar power infrastructure. Last year, Scotland produced 9.8 million megawatt hours of wind energy, or more than twice the power needed for all 4.47 million homes in Scotland. And the Scottish government set a legally binding resolution to get the country down to net-zero emissions by 2045, five years ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
: Officials in Scotland concede that their rapid gains are thanks to going after "low hanging fruit," obvious and relatively easy fixes that don't directly inconvenience people. Getting all the way to net-zero emissions will involve revamping transportation, private industry, and home heating, which will likely be a much bigger headache than simply transitioning from fossil-fuel power plants. <br />
<br />
: ''Comment on GQ article''<br />
:* the headline talks about "100 Percent Renewable Energy" whereas the small print in the article makes clear they're only talking about electricity, which is a small (though significant) proportion of total energy consumption, which will not be decarbonised any time soon<br />
:* the article itself gives no information about the sources of "renewable" energy in Scotland, and whether a small country with exceptional hydro, wind, wave and tidal resources in proportion to its population is a good comparison for a diverse, continent-sized country.<br />
:* Also not mentioned in the article is that Scotland has 2 nuclear power stations providing baseload, a gas plant, and interconnections to England. Scotland's net "renewable" energy production may be comfortably greater than its net energy demand, but it seems likely that nuclear, gas, and energy from south of the border will be keeping its lights on when the wind doesn't blow.<br />
<br />
==Others==<br />
<br />
[http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/16/how-the-grid-works-why-renewables-can-dominate/ How The Grid Works, & Why Renewables Can Dominate] Christopher Arcus; CleanTechnica blog; 16 Dec 2015<br />
: Claims that high levels - though not not 100% - of renewables penetration could be achieved without significant storage.<br />
<br />
[http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/07/the-environmentalist-case-against-100-renewable-energy-plans/398906/ The Environmentalist Case Against 100% Renewable Energy Plans] JULIAN SPECTOR @JulianSpector; Citylab; 20 Jul 2015 (republished on Mother Jones as [http://motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/nuclear-power-renewables-climate-change Why We Need Nuclear Power])<br />
<br />
[https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/ Leap Manifesto] (Canadian)<br />
: Energy proposals based on Jacobson<br />
<br />
----<br />
=== 50% WWS ===<br />
[https://eciu.net/news-and-events/press-releases/2018/renewables-based-smart-grid-keeps-lights-on-even-during-wind-lull-and-does-so-affordably Renewables-based ‘smart grid’ keeps lights on even during ‘wind lull’, and does so affordably] ;Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit; 22 Nov 2018<br />
: A smart grid based around wind and solar power would be able to keep Britain’s lights on even during an extreme three-week ‘wind lull’ in the middle of winter, a new analysis shows.<br />
<br />
: This is a key finding in a [https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/downloads/Smart_Grid_Report_LQ.pdf report by New Resource Partners] on the resilience of a smart, flexible power system increasingly dominated by variable renewable sources of electricity.<br />
<br />
: The report also found that by 2030, a UK electricity system where wind and solar generate 50 per cent of the country’s electricity is comparable on cost with one dominated by gas-fired power stations.<br />
<br />
[https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/downloads/Smart_Grid_Report_LQ.pdf GB Power Transition: Get Smart] <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Off Grid ==<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/will-solar-panels-and-tesla-powerwalls-meet-your-homes-energy-needs/ Will solar panels and Tesla Powerwalls meet your home’s energy needs?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 29 Nov 2017<br />
: Tesla is now marketing its Powerwall2 storage battery for domestic applications, claiming among other things that it can make your home self-powered and blackout-proof. Here I review Tesla’s claims using an existing rooftop PV array in the Arizona desert as a real-life example. Will a few Powerwalls allow the homeowner to go off-grid? Not a chance. Will they make the home blackout-proof? Maybe, maybe not. Will they save the homeowner money on his electricity bills? Not that I can see.<br />
<br />
: The example rooftop array is in Tucson, Arizona. I selected Tucson because if a solar-Powerwall2 combination won’t work there it won’t work anywhere in the US. Except for the area around Death Valley to the northwest the solar resource is about as good as it gets, the low (about 30%) seasonal solar range means that there is no large seasonal storage requirement and seasonal generation is not in antiphase to demand, as it is in some areas farther north<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/going-off-grid-in-the-uk/ Going off-grid in the UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 6 Dec 2017<br />
: In my recent post featuring a residence in Tucson, Arizona (latitude 32 north) I found that no reasonable number of Tesla Powerwalls would allow the homeowner to go off-grid using a combination of solar and battery storage. In this post I review a residence in UK (latitude 52 north) and find, unsurprisingly, that its prospects for going off-grid with solar and Powerwalls are likewise non-existent. Further reviews show that the overgeneration approach does not work well in the UK either. The only presently-available option for a UK homeowner with a solar array who wants to go off grid is to combine solar with a backup generator.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/more-on-going-off-grid-in-uk/ More on going off-grid in UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 13 Dec 2017<br />
:In my previous Going off-grid post I reviewed the question of whether Tesla Powerwalls or overgeneration, considered separately, might allow a UK homeowner with a rooftop solar array to go off-grid. In this post I consider the two in combination. Once more using 10 Mossbank Way as an example I find that there are circumstances in which it might make marginal economic sense for Mossbank to install up to one Powerwall, but that again that there is no realistic combination of Powerwalls and overgeneration that would allow Mossbank to power itself year-round with solar alone. Going off-grid is again found to increase Mossbank’s electricity costs substantially no matter what combination of the two is adopted.<br />
<br />
==Critique of 100% renewables plans generally==<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118300485?via%3Dihub Real-World Challenges with a Rapid Transition to 100% Renewable Power Systems] Clara Franziska Heuberger, Niall Mac Dowell; Joule; 26 Feb 2018<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/185146/running-renewables-sure-about-future/ Running on renewables: how sure can we be about the future?] Hayley Dunning; Imperial College News; 6 Mar 2018<br />
: A variety of models predict the role renewables will play in 2050, but some may be over-optimistic, and should be used with caution, say researchers.<br />
<br />
: ... researchers at Imperial College London have urged caution when basing future energy decisions on over-optimistic models that predict that the entire system could be run on renewables by the middle of this century.<br />
<br />
: Mathematical models are used to provide future estimates by taking into account factors such as the development and adoption of new technologies to predict how much of our energy demand can be met by certain energy mixes in 2050.<br />
<br />
: These models can then be used to produce ‘pathways’ that should ensure these targets are met – such as through identifying policies that support certain types of technologies.<br />
<br />
: However the models are only as good as the data and underlying physics they are based on, and some might not always reflect ‘real-world’ challenges. For example, some models do not consider power transmission, energy storage, or system operability requirements.<br />
<br />
<br />
: Now, in a paper published in the journal Joule, Imperial researchers have shown that studies that predict whole systems can run on near-100% renewable power by 2050 may be flawed as they do not sufficiently account for reliability of the supply.<br />
<br />
: Using data for the UK, the team tested a model for 100% power generation using only wind, water and solar (WWS) power by 2050. They found that the lack of firm and dispatchable ‘backup’ energy systems – such as nuclear or power plants equipped with carbon capture systems – means the power supply would fail often enough that the system would be deemed inoperable.<br />
<br />
: The team found that even if they added a small amount of backup nuclear and biomass energy, creating a 77% WWS system, around 9% of the annual UK demand could remain unmet, leading to considerable power outages and economic damage.<br />
<br />
: "...If a specific scenario relies on a combination of hypothetical and potentially socially challenging adaptation measures, in addition to disruptive technology breakthroughs, this begins to feel like wishful thinking."<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Heard, Brook, Wigley & Bradshaw ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117304495 Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems] B.P. Heard, B.W. Brook, T.M.L. Wigley, C.J.A. Bradshaw; Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; <br />
Volume 76, September 2017, Pages 1122–1133 [paywall]<br />
: Abstract<br />
: An effective response to climate change demands rapid replacement of fossil carbon energy sources. This must occur concurrently with an ongoing rise in total global energy consumption. While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible. Of the studies published to date, 24 have forecast regional, national or global energy requirements at sufficient detail to be considered potentially credible. We critically review these studies using four novel feasibility criteria for reliable electricity systems needed to meet electricity demand this century. These criteria are: (1) consistency with mainstream energy-demand forecasts; (2) simulating supply to meet demand reliably at hourly, half-hourly, and five-minute timescales, with resilience to extreme climate events; (3) identifying necessary transmission and distribution requirements; and (4) maintaining the provision of essential ancillary services. Evaluated against these objective criteria, none of the 24 studies provides convincing evidence that these basic feasibility criteria can be met. Of a maximum possible unweighted feasibility score of seven, the highest score for any one study was four. Eight of 24 scenarios (33%) provided no form of system simulation. Twelve (50%) relied on unrealistic forecasts of energy demand. While four studies (17%; all regional) articulated transmission requirements, only two scenarios—drawn from the same study—addressed ancillary-service requirements. In addition to feasibility issues, the heavy reliance on exploitation of hydroelectricity and biomass raises concerns regarding environmental sustainability and social justice. Strong empirical evidence of feasibility must be demonstrated for any study that attempts to construct or model a low-carbon energy future based on any combination of low-carbon technology. On the basis of this review, efforts to date seem to have substantially underestimated the challenge and delayed the identification and implementation of effective and comprehensive decarbonization pathways.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-dream-of-100-renewables-assessed-by-heard-et-al/ The dream of 100% renewables assessed by Heard et al] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 12 Apr 2017<br />
: Discussion of Heard et al paper<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy Is it the right target? Is it even possible?] David Roberts; Vox; 4 Apr 2017<br />
: Imagine powering civilization entirely with energy from renewable sources: wind, sun, water (hydroelectricity), naturally occurring heat (geothermal), and plants. No coal mines, oil wells, pipelines, or coal trains. No greenhouse gas emissions, car exhaust, or polluted streams. No wars over oil, dependence on foreign suppliers, or resource shortages.<br />
<br />
: Sounds nice, right?<br />
<br />
: A growing number of activists say it is within reach. The idea has inspired ambitious commitments from an increasing number of cities, including Madison, Wisconsin, San Diego, and Salt Lake City. Advocates are pushing states to support the goal. Clean-energy enthusiasts frequently claim that we can go bigger, that it’s possible for the whole world to run on renewables — we merely lack the “political will.” So, is it true? Do we know how get to an all-renewables system? Not yet. Not really. Current modeling strongly suggests that we will need a broader portfolio of low-carbon options, including nuclear and possibly coal or natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), to get deep cuts in carbon.<br />
<br />
[https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.]<br />
David Roberts; Vox; 7 Apr 2017<br />
: Reasons for skepticism, reasons for optimism, and some tentative conclusions.<br />
<br />
: Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons. So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient? That is the core of the dispute over 100 percent renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS. In this post I’m going to discuss three papers that examine the subject, try to draw a few tentative conclusions, and issue a plea for open minds and flexibility.<br />
<br />
[http://seekerblog.com/2016/01/17/energiewende-and-caliwende-the-heavy-cost-of-ideology/ Energiewende and Caliwende – the Heavy Cost of Ideology] Seeker Blog; 17 Jan 2016<br />
<br />
[https://www.jpmorgan.com/cm/BlobServer/Brave_New_World_-_Annual_energy_piece.pdf A Brave New World - deep decarbonisation of energy grids] J.P.Morgan; 19 Oct 2015<br />
: we focus on Germany and its Energiewende plan (deep de-carbonization of the electricity grid in which 80% of demand is met by renewable energy), and on a California version we refer to as Caliwende. We compare these systems to the current electricity mix, and to a balanced system with a mix of renewable and nuclear energy<br />
<br />
: Our primary conclusions:<br />
* A critical part of any analysis of high-renewable systems is the cost of backup thermal power and/or storage needed to meet demand during periods of low renewable generation. These costs are substantial; as a result, levelized costs of wind and solar are not the right tools to use in assessing the total cost of a high-renewable system<br />
* Emissions. High-renewable grids reduce CO2 emissions by 65%-70% in Germany and 55%-60% in California vs. the current grid. Reason: backup thermal capacity is idle for much of the year <br />
* Costs. High-renewable grid costs per MWh are 1.9x the current system in Germany, and 1.5x in California. Costs fall to 1.6x in Germany and 1.2x in California assuming long-run “learning curve” declines in wind, solar and storage costs, higher nuclear plant costs and higher natural gas fuel costs <br />
* Storage. The cost of time-shifting surplus renewable generation via storage has fallen, but its cost, intermittent utilization and energy loss result in higher per MWh system costs when it is added <br />
* Nuclear. Balanced systems with nuclear power have lower estimated costs and CO2 emissions than high-renewable systems. However, there’s enormous uncertainty regarding the actual cost of nuclear power in the US and Europe, rendering balanced system assessments less reliable. Nuclear power is growing in Asia where plant costs are 20%-30% lower, but political, historical, economic, regulatory and cultural issues prevent these observations from being easily applied outside of Asia <br />
* Location and comparability. Germany and California rank in the top 70th and 90th percentiles with respect to their potential wind and solar energy (see Appendix I). However, actual wind and solar energy productivity is higher in California (i.e., higher capacity factors), which is the primary reason that Energiewende is more expensive per MWh than Caliwende. Regions without high quality wind and solar irradiation may find that grids dominated by renewable energy are more costly <br />
* What-ifs. National/cross-border grid expansion, storing electricity in electric car batteries, demand management and renewable energy overbuilding are often mentioned as ways of reducing the cost of high-renewable systems. However, each relies to some extent on conjecture, insufficient empirical support and/or incomplete assessments of related costs <br />
<br />
[http://www.thirdway.org/report/the-climate-challenge-can-renewables-really-do-it-alone The Climate Challenge: Can Renewables Really do it Alone?] Josh Freed, Matt Bennett, Matt Goldberg; Third Way think-tank; 16 Dec 2015<br />
: tl;dr: no<br />
<br />
[https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/can-you-make-a-wind-turbine-without-fossil-fuels-2/ Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?] Robert Wilson; Carbon Counter; 11 Jun 2015<br />
: fossil fuel requirements and CO2 emissions of steel & concrete production - relevant to nuclear etc also<br />
<br />
: THIS POST ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE<br />
<br />
[http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf Limitations of 'Renewable' Energy] Leo Smith MA (Electrical sciences); (self-published)<br />
:* Introduction<br />
:* The three necessary concepts<br />
:* What is energy and power density, and why is it important?<br />
:* The important problem of intermittency<br />
:* What is dispatch, and why is it important?<br />
::* Nuclear power, dispatch and co-operation with intermittent renewables<br />
::* Dispatching with hydro electricity or pumped storage<br />
::* Dispatching with fossil fuelled power stations<br />
:* Capacity factor, and cost benefit analysis<br />
::* Where capacity factor originated<br />
::* The cost of variability<br />
::* Deriving costs of electrical generation<br />
::* Costing mixed grids of medium intermittent renewable content<br />
::* Indirect social, financial, resource and environmental costs of intermittency<br />
:* The real economics of nuclear power.<br />
::* Safety, waste disposal, and decommissioning<br />
* A pessimistic view?<br />
<br />
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/climate-carbon-renewables.html Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat] EDUARDO PORTER; N Y Times; 7 Nov 2017<br />
: ... as climate diplomats gather this week in Bonn, Germany, for the 23rd Conference of the Parties under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, I would like to point their attention to a different, perhaps gloomier statistic: the world’s carbon intensity of energy.<br />
<br />
: The term refers to a measure of the amount of CO2 spewed into the air for each unit of energy consumed. It offers some bad news: It has not budged since that chilly autumn day in Kyoto 20 years ago. Even among the highly industrialized nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the carbon intensity of energy has declined by a paltry 4 percent since then, according to the International Energy Agency.<br />
<br />
: This statistic, alone, puts a big question mark over the strategies deployed around the world to replace fossil energy. In a nutshell: Perhaps renewables are not the answer.<br />
<br />
: Over the past 10 years, governments and private investors have collectively spent $2 trillion on infrastructure to draw electricity from the wind and the sun, according to estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Environmental Progress, a nonprofit that advocates nuclear power as an essential tool in the battle against climate change, says that exceeds the total cost of all nuclear plants built to date or under construction, adjusted for inflation.<br />
<br />
: Capacity from renewable sources has grown by leaps and bounds, outpacing growth from all other sources — including coal, natural gas and nuclear power — in recent years. Solar and wind capacity installed in 2015 was more than 10 times what the International Energy Agency had forecast a decade before.<br />
<br />
: Still, except for very limited exceptions, all this wind and sun has not brought about much decarbonization. Indeed, it has not added much clean power to the grid.<br />
<br />
: Environmental Progress performed an analysis of the evolution of the carbon intensity of energy in 68 countries since 1965. It found no correlation between the additions of solar and wind power and the carbon intensity of energy: Despite additions of renewable capacity, carbon intensity remained flat.<br />
<br />
[[File:Proportion clean energy hydro+nuclear v renewables by country NY Times.png]]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/ The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid] James Temple; MIT Technology Review; 27 Jul 2018<br />
: Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.<br />
<br />
== Resource requirements of renewables ==<br />
<br />
=== Netherlands (Metabolic) study ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.metabolic.nl/publications/metal-demand-renewable-electricity-generation-netherlands/ METAL DEMANDFOR RENEWABLE ELECTRICITYGENERATION IN THE NETHERLANDS] Pieter van Exter et al; Metabolic; 2018<br />
: The current global supply of several critical metals is insufficient to transition to a renewable energy system. Calculations for the Netherlands show that production of wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV) solar panels already requires a significant share of the annual global production of some critical metals.Looking at the global scale, scenarios in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement require the global production of some metals to grow at least twelvefold towards 2050, compared to today’s output. Specifically, the demand for neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium stands out. This calculation does not include the demand for these specific metals in other applications, such as electric vehicles or consumer electronics.<br />
<br />
[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3mavb/we-dont-mine-enough-rare-earth-metals-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energy We Don't Mine Enough Rare Earth Metals to Replace Fossil Fuels With Renewable Energy] Nafeez Ahmed; Vice Motherboard; 12 Dec 2018<br />
: Rare earth metals are used in solar panels and wind turbines—as well as electric cars and consumer electronics. We don't recycle them, and there's not enough to meet growing demand.<br />
<br />
: A new scientific study supported by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure warns that the renewable energy industry could be about to face a fundamental obstacle: shortages in the supply of rare metals.<br />
<br />
: To meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement, renewable energy production has to scale up fast. This means that global production of several rare earth minerals used in solar panels and wind turbines—especially neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium—must grow twelvefold by 2050.<br />
<br />
: But according to the new study by Dutch energy systems company Metabolic, the “current global supply of several critical metals is insufficient to transition to a renewable energy system.”<br />
<br />
: The study focuses on demand for rare metals in the Netherlands and extrapolates this to develop a picture of how global trends are likely to develop.<br />
<br />
: “If the rest of the world would develop renewable electricity capacity at a comparable pace with the Netherlands, a considerable shortage would arise,” the study finds. This doesn’t include other applications of rare earth metals in other electronics industries (rare earth metals are widely used in smartphones, for example). “When other applications (such as electric vehicles) are also taken into consideration, the required amount of certain metals would further increase.”<br />
<br />
: Demand for rare metals is pitched to rise exponentially across the world, and not just due to renewables. Demand is most evident in “consumer electronics, military applications, and other technical equipment in industrial applications. The growth of the global middle class from 1 billion to 3 billion people will only further accelerate this growth.”<br />
<br />
: But the study did not account for those other industries. This means the actual problem could be far more intractable. In 2017, a study in Nature found that a range of minerals essential for smartphones, laptops, electric cars and even copper wiring could face supply shortages in coming decades.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21359 Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance] Saleem H. Ali; Nature; 16 Mar 2017 ''(paywalled)''<br />
: Successful delivery of the United Nations sustainable development goals and implementation of the Paris Agreement requires technologies that utilize a wide range of minerals in vast quantities. Metal recycling and technological change will contribute to sustaining supply, but mining must continue and grow for the foreseeable future to ensure that such minerals remain available to industry. New links are needed between existing institutional frameworks to oversee responsible sourcing of minerals, trajectories for mineral exploration, environmental practices, and consumer awareness of the effects of consumption. Here we present, through analysis of a comprehensive set of data and demand forecasts, an interdisciplinary perspective on how best to ensure ecologically viable continuity of global mineral supply over the coming decades.<br />
<br />
== Actual 100% renewable installations ==<br />
<br />
''See [http://scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Energy_mix#Mini-grids_.2F_small_100.25_renewables_projects:_Tasmania.2C_El_Hierro.2C_Ta.27u_etc Small Renewables Projects]''</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=100%25_renewables&diff=5491100% renewables2022-08-03T23:24:57Z<p>Sisussman: /* Greenpeace */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 2]] <br />
[[Category: 100% renewables]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
There are various claims that individual countries, or even the whole world, could obtain all their electricity - or even their whole energy supplies - from various combinations of low-carbon "renewable" sources, excluding nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and, usually, biomass. Reasons given for excluding nuclear energy range from general unquantified concerns about "safety", claims that nuclear is not a low-carbon source, and assertion that use of nuclear energy will lead to nuclear war.<br />
<br />
All proposed scenarios depend heavily on intermittent sources of renewable energy and can be categorised by how they propose to try to solve the problem of matching intermittent supplies to demand, and to what extent they quantify the measures they propose to do this. At one extreme Greenpeace based its 2012 [[#Greenpeace|energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution]] on an assumption that the IT industry would somehow come up with a way of making demand match supply. At the other extreme [[#Zero Carbon Britain|Zero Carbon Britain]] offers a detailed, quantified plan based on converting excess intermittent electricity to storable chemical fuels. Between these extremes are proposals which depend on more or less plausible combinations of very long distance transmission of huge amounts of energy, prodigious amounts of storage and/or dispatchable hydro.<br />
<br />
Few of these proposals have been published in the scientific literature or by recognised expert bodies. Of those which have, and which have been examined by the IPCC and other experts, none has been found to be generally satisfactory.<br />
<br />
== Jacobson et al ==<br />
<br />
The best-known proponent of what he calls "100% WWS" (100% Wind, Water and Sun) is [[Mark Z. Jacobson]].<br />
Jacobson is a Professor at Stanford University and a recognised expert on the effects on climate of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol aerosols] - fine solid particles or liquid droplets suspended in the atmosphere.<br />
<br />
Jacobson has in recent years advocated 100% renewables energy scenarios for the United States and, later, worldwide. His proposals have been enthusiastically received by politicians, celebrities and environmental organisations, but widely criticised by energy experts and commentators. Most notoriously when Renewables expert Christopher Clack and 20 others published a paper criticising and rebutting Jacobson's claims Jacobson responded by suing the National Academy of Sciences for publishing the paper, and the Clack - the only author without institutional backing - personally for $10Million.<br />
<br />
Jacobson rejects nuclear energy partly because he claims that expanding nuclear energy will inevitably lead to nuclear war causing cities to burn, releasing CO2.<br />
<br />
== Breyer / Lappeenranta University of Technology ==<br />
<br />
Another 100% renewables plan is by Christian Breyer and colleages at the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland.<br />
[[Breyer-LUT]]<br />
<br />
== Zero Carbon Britain (CAT) ==<br />
<br />
The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT)'s [http://zerocarbonbritain.org/ Zero Carbon Britain] includes a plan for producing reliable electricity supplies using intermittent renewables, converting excess electricity into methane which can be stored and converted back into electricity when needed.<br />
<br />
== French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME) ==<br />
<br />
French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME)'s [http://www.actu-environnement.com/media/pdf/rapport100pourcentsENR_comite.pdf Vers un mix eléctrique 100% renouvelable en 2050] (and response "[http://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/articles/pdf_files/temoignages/Analyse%20rapport%20ADEME%20tout%20renouvelables_G%20Sapy.pdf Analysis and comments on the report: towards a mix 100% renewables in 2050]" - in French).<br />
<br />
=== Commentary & criticism of ZCB, ADEME etc ===<br />
Critical analysis of ADEME and CAT/ZCB scenarios with particular reference to energy storage in: [http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-storage-and-power-to-methane/ Renewable Energy Storage and Power-To-Methane] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters blog; 25 Jun 2015<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-renewables-future-a-summary-of-findings/ The Renewables Future – A Summary of Findings] Roger Andrews; 13 Aug 2015<br />
<br />
== Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill: Australia ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512002169 Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market] Ben Elliston, Mark Diesendorf, Iain MacGill<br />
<br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987376/dispelling_the_nuclear_baseload_myth_nothing_renewables_cant_do_better.html Dispelling the nuclear 'baseload' myth: nothing renewables can't do better!] Mark Diesendorf; The Ecologist; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: The main claim used to justify nuclear is that it's the only low carbon power source that can supply 'reliable, baseload electricity', writes Mark Diesendorf - unlike wind and solar. But not only can renewables supply baseload power, they can do something far more valuable: supply power flexibly according to demand. Now nuclear power really is redundant.<br />
<br />
=== Commentary & criticism of Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill ===<br />
<br />
[http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/06/02/critique-100pc-renewables-edm/ Critique of the proposal for 100% renewable energy electricity supply in Australia] Dr Ted Trainer; Brave New Climate blog; 2 Jun 2014<br />
<br />
== Elliston and Riesz ==<br />
<br />
[http://ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/PES%20APPEEC%202015%20-%20Elliston-Riesz-NearSolutions-2015-07-14a.pdf Future high renewable electricity scenarios – Insights from mapping the diversity of near least cost portfolios] B. Elliston, J. Riesz<br />
: This paper reports on future electricity generation scenarios modelled using NEMO, a model that applies a genetic algorithm to optimise a mix of simulated generators to meet hourly demand profiles, to the required reliability standard, at lowest overall industry cost. The modelling examined the least and near least cost technology portfolios for a scenario that limited emissions to approximately one quarter of those from the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) at present. It was found that all the near least cost solutions (within 15% of the least cost solution) involved wind capacity in the range of 31-51 GW, with 98.8% of these near least cost portfolios having at least 35 GW of wind installed. In contrast, the near least cost solutions consistently involved much lower quantities of PV, with 90% of the near least cost portfolios having less than 4.9 GW of installed PV capacity. This suggests that policies to promote high levels of wind deployment and grid integration are likely to be important for achieving low cost, low emissions outcomes, while policies to promote significant PV deployment may be less warranted in the absence of cost effective supporting technologies, such as battery storage or significant demand side participation.<br />
: 3/4 of peer-rev'd refs are author's own. Other is BZE which proposes Australia abandon aviation by 2020. - Oscar Archer @ActinideAge<br />
<br />
== Greenpeace / Brainpool ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/essays/2987195/wind_power_with_windgas_is_cheaper_and_greener_than_hinkley_point_c_nuclear_plant.html Wind power with 'windgas' is cheaper and greener than Hinkley Point C nuclear plant] Ecologist<br />
<br />
[http://www.energybrainpool.com/en/services/study-directory/studies-hinkley-point-c.html STUDIES ABOUT THE PLANNED BRITISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HINKLEY POINT C] Energy Brainpool<br />
<br />
*Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: At a lower cost / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (German only)<br />
* Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: A cost comparison / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (English)<br />
* Effects of Hinkley Point C on the german electricity market / Study on behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, July 2015 (German only)<br />
* Level of public funding of Hinkley Point C / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, June 2015 (German only)<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/pressematerial/Hinkley_Point/20160121_Study_Windgas_HPC_English.pdf WIND POWER AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEAR POWER FROM HINKLEY POINT C: A COST COMPARISON] A short analysis commissioned by Greenpeace Energy in Germany<br />
<br />
[http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2014/10/27/what-happens-when-the-wind-doesnt-blow/ What happens when the wind doesn’t blow?] Southern Alliance for Clean Energy blog<br />
<br />
== Greenpeace ==<br />
<br />
[https://scienceforsustainability.org/docs/energy/plans/renewables/Greenpeace/Greenpeace_energy_revolution_2012.pdf energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution] 2012<br />
{{q|Technological opportunities Changes to the power system by 2050 will create huge business opportunities for the information, communication and technology (ICT) sector. A smart grid has power supplied from a diverse range of sources and places and it relies on the gathering and analysis of a lot of data. Smart grids require software, hardware and data networks capable of delivering data quickly, and of responding to the information that they contain. Several important ICT players are racing to smarten up energy grids across the globe and hundreds of companies could be involved with smart grids.<br />
<br />
There are numerous IT companies offering products and services to manage and monitor energy. These include IBM, Fujitsu, Google, Microsoft and Cisco. These and other giants of the telecommunications and technology sector have the power to make the grid smarter, and to move us faster towards a clean energy future. Greenpeace has initiated the ‘Cool IT’ campaign to put pressure on the IT sector to make such technologies a reality.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2015/Energy-Revolution-2015-Full.pdf energy <nowiki>[</nowiki>r<nowiki>]</nowiki>evolution] 2015<br />
: 5th Edition<br />
* Project manager and lead author Dr. Sven Teske, Greenpeace International<br />
* Global Wind Energy Council steve sawyer<br />
* SolarPowerEurope oliver schäfer<br />
* research & co-authors<br />
* Overall Modelling: dlr, institute of engineering thermodynamics, systems analysis and technology assessment, stuttgart, germany: dr. thomas Pregger, dr. sonja simon, dr. tobias naegler<br />
<br />
[http://www.demandenergyequality.org/2030-energy-scenario.html 2030 Energy Scenarios]<br />
[http://www.mediafire.com/download/r79m6jakihb0ud7/Greenpeace_2030_Public_Sept2015.pdf report]<br />
:In early 2015 we were commissioned by Greenpeace UK to design and test an ambitious, low carbon 2030 energy scenario using the 'Smart Household Energy Demand (SHED) model. It shows that it is possible for the UK's power system to be nearly 90% renewably delivered by 2030, while electrifying 25% of all heating demand - and putting 12.7 million electric cars on the road. But only if we can cut demand for space heating by 57% in the next 15 years - a major challenge.<br />
[http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/09/21/4-ways-the-uk-can-get-almost-all-its-power-from-renewables/ 4 ways the UK can get almost all its power from renewables – without Hinkley]<br />
<br />
[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Climate-Reports/Energy-Revolution-2015/ Energy Revolution 2015]<br />
<br />
== Skeptical science ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374 Can renewables provide baseload power?] based on <br />
* [http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf DO WE NEED BASE-LOAD POWER STATIONS?] Diesendorf/EnergyScience Coalition<br />
* US National Renewable Energy Laboratory [http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html] [http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/wwsis.html]<br />
* [http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/ Ecofys] [http://www.skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-by-2050.html report],<br />
* [http://www.skepticalscience.com/plan-100-percent-energy-wind-water-solar.html Jacobson & Delucci] [http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf (part 1)]<br />
* [http://www.rethinking2050.eu/fileadmin/documents/ReThinking2050_full_version_final.pdf European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)] * broken link *<br />
* [http://diggy.ruc.dk//bitstream/1800/4386/1/A_RENEWABLE_ENERGY_AND_HYDROGEN_SCENARIO_FOR_NORTHERN_EUROPE.pdf A renewable energy and hydrogen scenario for northern Europe] Sorensen<br />
* [http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/ ZCB]<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544208000959 Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050] Lund and Mathiessen; Energy; 2009 (paywall)<br />
* [http://www.die-klima-allianz.de/wp-content/uploads/uba_2010.pdf Energieziel 2050: 100% Strom auserneuerbaren Quellen] Klaus 2010 (Germany)<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261910003703 How to achieve a 100% RES electricity supply for Portugal?] Krajačić et al; Applied Energy; 2010 - 5th Dubrovnik (hydro, storage - via H2?)<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191000070X The first step towards a 100% renewable energy-system for Ireland] Connolly et al; Applied Energy; 2010 - 5th Dubrovnik ("three different 100% renewable energy-systems were created with each focusing on a different resource: biomass, hydrogen, and electricity. These energy-systems were compared so that the benefits from each could be used to create an ‘optimum’ scenario called combination. Although the results illustrate a potential 100% renewable energy-system for Ireland, they have been obtained based on numerous assumptions. Therefore, these will need to be improved in the future before a serious roadmap can be defined for Ireland’s renewable energy transition")<br />
* [http://www.skepticalscience.com/Zero-Carbon-Australia-2020.html Zero Carbon Australia]<br />
* [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510001850 A 100% renewable electricity generation system for New Zealand utilising hydro, wind, geothermal and biomass resources] Mason et al.; Energy Policy; 2010 (paywall) (60% hydro 32% ff - plan adds wind, geothermal, uses hydro storage)<br />
<br />
== Krugman ==<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/opinion/planet-on-the-ballot.html Planet on the Ballot] Paul Krugman; NY Times; 29 Feb 2016<br />
<br />
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432262/paul-krugman-renewable-energy-folly-coal-and-fossil-fuels-still-necessary Paul Krugman Needs an Energy Reality Check] Robert Bryce; National Review; 3 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
== Chivers / Two Energy Futures ==<br />
[http://www.twoenergyfutures.net/ Two Energy Futures] ''(links in site don't work - reported to Danny Chivers 03/05/2019)''<br />
<br />
[http://newint.org/blog/2015/08/15/material-requirements/ The stuff problem] Danny Chivers; New Internationalist blog; <br />
:+links<br />
<br />
== Scott Cato / South West England ==<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/2015/04/17/power-to-transform/ Power To Transform] index page<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MSC-SW-Energy-leaflet-V2_pages.pdf Summary leaflet – easy to read pages]<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MSC-SW-Energy-leaflet-V2_spreads.pdf Summary leaflet – full spread]<br />
<br />
: A report commissioned by Molly Scott Cato MEP reveals:<br />
* The region has the renewable energy resources to meet more than 100% of its total energy needs, including replacement of liquid fuels.<br />
* A move to a renewable energy economy has the potential to create 122,000 jobs, an increase in employment of 4.5% across the region.<br />
* One third of energy needs can be met from marine and inshore estuarine tidal energy, with the remaining two thirds from onshore renewables.<br />
* The cost of delivering 100% renewable energy to the region would be around £60 billion. The equivalent cost of delivering 100% of energy needs from nuclear would be around £83 billion.<br />
* Renewables offer opportunities for ushering in a Smart Grid Energy Storage system that would balance the intermittency of some renewable technologies<br />
* Local Smart Grids developed in conjunction with renewable energy resources would reduce the need for large scale pylons and transmission systems. In the South West we can demonstrate just how much better a society powered by clean, green energy would really be. As is so often the case, the right environmental choice will also ensure greater economic justice and help us build flourishing local economies. Locally produced renewable energy will bring a huge economic boost and new jobs and benefit in particular some of our more deprived rural economies. The South West of England has some of the world’s best renewable energy resources, in great abundance and great variety. All that holds us back from a renewable energy revolution and energy security is a failure of political will. Our politicians must progress beyond the fossil-fuel past into the sunny uplands of our shared renewable future.<br />
<br />
[http://mollymep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/The-power-to-transform-the-South-West_FINAL1.pdf The power to transform the South West: How to meet the region’s energy needs through renewable energy generation]<br />
: Researched and written by The Resilience Centre<br />
: Commissioned by Molly Scott Cato MEP<br />
: Funded by the Green/EFA group in the European Parliament<br />
# The South West region has the renewable energy resources to meet more than 100% of its total energy needs, including replacement of liquid fuels and electrifying railways.<br />
# We could generate 67,448,817 MWhrs/year of renewable energy as 42,690,806 MWehrs of electrical energy and 24,758,010 MWth of thermal energy (67,449 GWhrs/year) from 31,804 MW of Generating Capacity (thermal & electricity).<br />
# ''[the report omits a point 3]''<br />
# 34% of energy needs can be met from marine and inshore estuarine tidal energy, and 66% from onshore renewables.<br />
# To enable the devenopment of renewable energy generation we would suggest installing 12,051 MWe capacity of smart grid energy storage to balance intermittency of renewables and allow demand led local smart grids to be developed.<br />
# This energy storage would provide 19,281,000 MWhrs/year or 29% of energy as demand required. <br />
# An estimated 122,000 full time equivalent jobs could be created if we deliver and maintain this renewable energy generation regionally, an increase in employment of 4.5% for the region.<br />
# We estimate that the capital cost of delivering such a programme would be £59,484m, including £8,784m on Smart Grid energy storage. This is 72% of equivalent nuclear costs for delivering the same amount of energy.<br />
# The equivalent cost of delivering 100% of the South West energy needs from nuclear is £82,510m or 138% of the equivalent cost of delivering with renewable energy.<br />
# Renewables costs provide for a local smart grid with energy storage and flexibility to meet spikes and drops in demand and reduce need for large scale pylons and transmission systems.<br />
# Renewables costs include £500m/year investment in local/regional grid reinforcement and upgrade, equivalent to an increased annual expenditure on grid upgrade and management of 64% each year.<br />
# The potential annual value added for delivering the constrained renewable energy resources of the South West would be £4,286m/year, equivalent to an annual growth rate of 4.0% year on year and equivalent to 48% of the total value of the tourism industry and 87% of the aerospace and defence industry in the South West<br />
<br />
== UK National Infrastructure Commission ==<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-national-infrastructure-commissions-plan-for-a-renewable-uk/ The National Infrastructure Commission’s plan for a renewable UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 19 Jul 2018<br />
: The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) was launched by then-chancellor George Osborne in October 2015 to “think dispassionately and independently about Britain’s long-term infrastructure needs in areas like transport, energy, communication, flood defence and the like.” Well, the NIC has now thought dispassionately and independently about energy and has concluded that the UK can meet its 2050 decarbonization goals with either a mostly nuclear or mostly renewable generation mix, but that “wind and solar could deliver the same generating capacity as nuclear for the same price, and would be a better choice because there was less risk”. Here we take a brief look at this renewables-beats-nuclear option to see whether it might work.<br />
<br />
== USA ==<br />
[http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/ Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar] Mike Conley & Tim Maloney; 17 Apr 2015<br />
<br />
[http://uk.businessinsider.com/wind-turbines-to-power-earth-2016-9 Here's how much of the US would need to be covered in wind turbines to power the nation]<br />
Leanna Garfield ; Business Insider UK; 26 Sep 2016<br />
: Though the US invested $14.5 billion in wind-power project installations last year, wind farms still provide less than 5% of the nation's energy, according to the American Wind Energy Association. AWEA's manager of industry data analysis, John Hensley, did the following math: 4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines. In terms of land use, those 583,000 turbines would take up about the total land mass of Rhode Island, Hensley says, because wind projects typically require 0.74 acres of land per megawatt produced.<br />
: Hensley considered that the average wind turbine has an output of 2 megawatts of power and is 40% efficient. <br />
: For comparison, solar projects operate at an average of 20% efficiency<br />
: When you multiply a wind turbine's average potential (2 megawatts) by its 40% annual energy efficiency, 365 days a year, you get Hensley's estimate of the megawatt-hours of energy production each turbine can produce (7,008).<br />
<br />
=== David Roberts ===<br />
[http://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12721206/eastern-us-30-percent-renewables The Eastern US could get a third of its power from renewables within 10 years. Theoretically.] David Roberts; Vox; 31 Aug 2016<br />
: Model of Eastern Interconnect can accommodate 30 percent "variable generation" (VG)<br />
<br />
[http://www.biodiversivist.com/2016/09/david-roberts-on-latest-nrel-30-wind.html David Roberts on the latest NREL 30% wind and solar study] Russ Finley; Biodiversivist; 5 Sep 2016<br />
: consider this article to be a comment under David's article: The Eastern US could get a third of its power from renewables within 10years. Theoretically, which has no comment field.<br />
<br />
== Australia ==<br />
<br />
[http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/resources/assets/1708BlakersREAust.pdf 100% renewable electricity in Australia] Andrew Blakers, Bin Lu, Matthew Stocks; Energy; 29 May 2017<br />
: An hourly energy balance analysis is presented of the Australian National Electricity Market in a 100% renewable energy scenario, in which wind and photovoltaics (PV) provides about 90% of the annual electricity demand and existing hydroelectricity and biomass provides the balance. Heroic assumptions about future technology development are avoided by only including technology that is being deployed in large quantities (>10 Gigawatts per year), namely PV and wind.<br />
<br />
: Additional energy storage and stronger interconnection between regions was found to be necessary for stability. Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) constitutes 97% of worldwide electricity storage, and is adopted in this work. Many sites for closed loop PHES storage have been found in Australia. Distribution of PV and wind over 10e100 million hectares, utilising high voltage transmission, accesses different weather systems and reduces storage requirements (and overall cost).<br />
<br />
: The additional cost of balancing renewable energy supply with demand on an hourly rather than annual basis is found to be modest: AU$25e30/MWh (US$19e23/MWh). Using 2016 prices prevailing in Australia, the levelised cost of renewable electricity (LCOE) with hourly balancing is estimated to be AU$93/MWh (US$70/MWh). LCOE is almost certain to decrease due to rapidly falling cost of wind and PV<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/100-renewable-electricity-in-australia/ 100% renewable electricity in Australia] Euan Mearns / Roger Young; Energy Matters; 1 Nov 2017<br />
: The object of his post, which was originally submitted as a comment, is an academic study published by Blakers et al that claims Australia can become a 100% renewables nation at relatively low cost. Roger Young questions the modelling work presented and asserts that the storage requirement has been under-estimated by a factor of 12 which naturally has a profound impact on the cost estimates.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/australia-energy-storage-and-the-blakers-study/ Australia, energy storage and the Blakers study] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 13 Nov 2017<br />
: Roger Young’s recent post focused on the question of whether the energy storage requirements listed in Prof. Andrew Blakers’ study “100% renewable electricity in Australia” were realistic, but at the time no hard numbers on exactly how much storage Prof. Blakers’ scenarios would require were available. I have now come up with some reasonably hard numbers by applying Blakers’ scenarios to recent Australian grid data. Because the grid data cover a period of only a few months these numbers are not fully diagnostic, but they are sufficient to confirm Roger Young’s conclusion that the Blakers study seriously underestimates storage requirements.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wind-and-solar-on-thursday-island/ Wind and solar on Thursday Island] Roger Andrews / Mark; Energy Matters; 8 Feb 2018<br />
: In this post Mark documents the results of wind and solar data from Thursday Island that leaves him sceptical of the claims made by Prof. Andrew Blakers that wind generation spikes in Queensland will offset wind generation lulls in the rest of Australia<br />
<br />
: While rummaging around the internet to see if I could find any information on the performance of wind farms in Queensland (and especially in Far North Queensland – Andrew Blakers’ supposed panacea for the rather more correlated wind farm outputs in the NEM area), I came across Thursday Island, which installed a small two turbine wind farm 20 years ago. Thursday Island is about as FNQ as you can get – about 25 miles into the Torres Strait that separates Australia and Papua New Guinea. The bonanza came when I encountered a pamphlet from Harwell complete with charts showing monthly performance of the wind farm and its contribution to local power demand.<br />
<br />
== IRENA 2018 ==<br />
[http://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Apr/IRENA_Report_GET_2018.pdf Global Energy Transformation] International Renewable Energy Agency; 2018<br />
: Renewable energy needs to be scaled up at least six times faster for the world to start to meet the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. <br />
<br />
: The historic climate accord from 2015 seeks, at minimum, to limit average global temperature rise to “well below 2°C” in the present century, compared to pre-industrial levels. Renewables, in combination with rapidly improving energy efficiency, form the cornerstone of a viable climate solution.<br />
<br />
: Keeping the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius (°C) is technically feasible. It would also be more economically, socially and environmentally beneficial than the path resulting from current plans and policies. However, the global energy system must undergo a profound transformation, from one largely based on fossil fuels to one that enhances efficiency and is based on renewable energy. Such a global energy transformation – seen as the culmination of the “energy transition” that is already happening in many countries – can create a world that is more prosperous and inclusive.<br />
<br />
=== Criticism of IRENA 2018 ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-to-save-the-world-from-climate-catastrophe-the-irena-study/ How to save the world from climate catastrophe – the IRENA study] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 20 Nov 2018<br />
<br />
: IRENA, the International Renewable Agency, has just published a study showing how the world can meet the not-to-exceed-2°C emissions goal set by the Paris Agreement. It’s not a 100% renewables study – it still includes a little oil, gas and nuclear – but it concludes, unsurprisingly, that a massive expansion of renewable energy in all sectors will be needed between now and 2050, along with major improvements in energy efficiency, to keep the Earth within its allowable carbon budget. The study provides information on the changes that will be needed to meet this goal but provides no specifics on how they are to be met. It estimates the costs of the changes at $120 trillion (~$4 trillion/year from now to 2050, or about 5% of total world GDP) but provides no specifics on where the money is to come from. It is nevertheless confident that this massive outlay will be “dwarfed by the benefits”.<br />
<br />
: The IRENA report contains 73 pages, only 10 of which (Analysis and Insights in Key Sectors, pp. 31-40) deal with the specifics of the changes that are needed to achieve IRENA’s proposed “energy transition”. But no information is provided on how these changes are to be achieved and whether they will work if they are. Simulation models, such as those used in the Jacobson, Lappeenranta and Blakers studies, are normally used to perform this task, but IRENA seems to have by-passed this step. It has simply estimated how much renewable energy and improved energy efficiency is needed to meet the 2°C emissions goal, and the costs thereof, and it presents these estimates as achievable solutions rather than targets.<br />
<br />
: REmap’s assumed energy efficiency improvements cut the world’s 2050 energy consumption by 40% over what it would otherwise have been<br />
<br />
: The REmap scenario envisions a doubling of electricity generation, achieved mostly by a massive expansion of wind and solar, coupled with a reduction in fossil fuel generation<br />
<br />
: The percentage of renewables in the mix increases from 24% to 85% between 2015 and 2050. The remaining generation consists of 4% nuclear and 10% gas<br />
<br />
:* Hydro capacity expands by 37.5% between 2015 and 2050 and pumped hydro capacity by a factor of 2.1 (note that capacity is again give in GW, not GWh). This is optimistic but not unreasonable.<br />
<br />
:* Onshore wind capacity expands by factor of 12.3. The feasibility of this is questionable. Onshore wind is already coming under attack for its visual and potential health impacts, and the scale of the additions (an annual average of 150GW, roughly twice the UK’s total installed capacity) far exceeds anything achieved to date.<br />
<br />
:* Offshore wind capacity expands by a factor of 43. Enough said.<br />
<br />
:* Solar PV capacity expands by a factor of 32, an average rate of 230 GW a year. The maximum annual rate achieved so far, with the assistance of generous subsidies, is 100 GW/year.<br />
<br />
:* CSP (concentrated solar power) capacity expands by a factor of 127 to 633GW, roughly twice Japan’s present installed capacity. As discussed in posts here and here CSP is a borderline failed technology.<br />
<br />
:* Bioenergy capacity expands by a factor of 3.2 to 384 GW. I don’t have enough information to say whether this is feasible or not.<br />
<br />
:* Geothermal capacity expands by a factor of 23 to 227 GW. As discussed in this post there aren’t enough high-temperature geothermal resources in the world to support this level of expansion.<br />
<br />
:* Others (marine, hybrid) expand by a factor of 2,937 to 881 GW, not far short of total installed capacity in the European Union. If two-thirds of it is tidal we are looking at approximately 2,500 Swansea-Bay-sized tidal lagoons.<br />
<br />
: The question here is whether the generation from this capacity mix will cover demand 24/365 in all parts of the world. Simulation models, such as those used in the Jacobson, Lappeenranta and Blakers studies, are normally used to perform this task, but IRENA seems to have bypassed this step altogether. It has simply estimated how much renewable energy and improved energy efficiency is needed to meet the 2°C emissions goal, and it presents these estimates as achievable solutions rather than targets. Whether they would cover global demand 24/365 is, however, questionable. Conditions will of course vary in different places, but with 41,500 TWh of annual generation the average load will be 5.4 TW – substantially more than the 3.5 TW of dispatchable generation, some of which will not be well-adapted for load following. Managing wind and solar surpluses and deficits could therefore pose a problem.<br />
<br />
: And how does IRENA propose to manage it? It devotes only two short paragraphs, neither of which tells us much, to the issue (note: VRE = Variable Renewable Energy):<br />
<br />
:: ''Investments will be needed for storage, transmission and distribution capacity, and for flexible generation and demand-response. Between 2015 and 2050, investments in these areas would add an estimated USD 9 trillion under the REmap Case (relative to the Reference Case). This investment would allow the system to accommodate 62% VRE while ensuring an adequate, stable and reliable electricity supply.''<br />
<br />
:: ''Support investment to enable infrastructure to integrate VRE and smart technologies (including batteries, smart charging for electric vehicles, blockchain, machine learning, use of “big data”) that have the potential to optimise extensive use of renewables to generate power.''<br />
<br />
: And how much storage capacity will there be? None is listed in Figure 6, but the Transport section (IRENA Figure 10) includes 12,380 GWh of EV battery storage, enough to keep the world in electricity for about two hours assuming 100% charge/discharge efficiency. According to IRENA this capacity will come from over 1 billion EVs.<br />
<br />
:: ''sales of electric vehicles, electric buses and electric two- and three-wheelers are growing. In 2017 around 3 million electric vehicles were on the road. Under the REmap Case, the number would increase to over 1 billion by 2050.''<br />
<br />
: But 12,380 GWh spread over 1 billion EVs gives an average of only 12.38 kWh/vehicle, so many of these vehicles will be two- and three-wheelers used for transportation in developing countries. Whether these vehicles can be counted on to discharge their batteries when the grid needs it is questionable. Whether owners of four-wheel EVs in developed countries can be counted on to discharge their batteries when the grid needs it questionable too.<br />
<br />
== Energy Matters ==<br />
<br />
Euan Mearns and Roger Andrews at the Energy Matters blog have posted analyses of various scenarios for achieving reliable electricity supplies from wind and solar energy.<br />
<br />
=== Wind + storage for peak-smoothing ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-dispatchable-wind-power/ The Cost of Dispatchable Wind Power] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: I calculate how much storage would be required to deliver the diurnal peaks in demand from dispatchable wind – pumped – storage – hydro. I’ve taken this approach for a number of reasons:<br />
* The daily demand peaks fetch the highest prices and supplying these peaks follows the traditional finance model for pumped storage hydro – buying low and selling high<br />
* Servicing the peaks as opposed to base load minimises the amount of storage required (the demand peaks represent 18% of total demand in March 2015)<br />
* Supplying the demand peaks in the UK from wind + storage will allow about 20 GW of conventional generation to be retired<br />
* Allowing the fossil fuel generators to supply base load allows them to run at optimum efficiency and to minimise their CO2 emissions per unit of electricity produced. By way of contingency it leaves the door open for an all-nuclear base load supply.<br />
<br />
=== Over-capacity and curtailment ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-quest-for-100-renewables-can-curtailment-replace-storage/ The quest for 100% renewables – can curtailment replace storage?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 23 Jun 2017<br />
: Previous Energy Matters posts have highlighted the prohibitive amounts of energy storage that are needed to make 100% intermittent renewables work. In this post I give the problem one last shot. Can storage requirements be reduced to manageable levels by producing more renewable energy than is needed to fill demand and curtailing the surpluses? The answer is no. Curtailment does indeed reduce storage requirements, but not to manageable levels. This would appear to eliminate the possibility of developing a grid powered 100% by intermittent renewables. Backup fossil fuel generation will always be needed to fill demand when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wind-blowing-nowhere/ Wind Blowing Nowhere] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 23 Jan 2015<br />
: In much of Europe energy policy is being formulated by policymakers who assume that combining wind generation over large areas will flatten out the spikes and fill in the troughs and thereby allow wind to be “harnessed to provide reliable electricity” as the European Wind Energy Association tells them it will:<br />
<br />
::The wind does not blow continuously, yet there is little overall impact if the wind stops blowing somewhere – it is always blowing somewhere else. Thus, wind can be harnessed to provide reliable electricity even though the wind is not available 100% of the time at one particular site.<br />
<br />
: Here we will review whether this assumption is valid. We will do so by progressively combining hourly wind generation data for 2013 for nine countries in Western Europe downloaded from the excellent data base compiled by Paul-Frederik Bach, paying special attention to periods when “the wind stops blowing somewhere”. The nine countries are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Germany, Spain and the UK, which together cover a land area of 2.3 million square kilometers and extend over distances of 2,000 kilometers east-west and 4,000 kilometers north-south:<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/quantifying-wind-surpluses-and-deficits-in-western-europe/ Quantifying wind surpluses and deficits in Western Europe] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 7 Nov 2018<br />
: This post updates my January 2015 Wind blowing nowhere post using 2016 rather than 2013 data. The 2016 data show the same features as the 2013 data, with high and low wind conditions extending over large areas and a decreasing level of correlation with distance between countries. The post also quantifies the surpluses and deficits created by high and low wind conditions in January 2016 in gigawatts. The results indicate that wind surpluses in Western European countries during windy periods will be too large to be exported to surrounding countries and that wind deficits during wind lulls will be too large to be covered by imports from surrounding countries. This casts further doubt on claims that wind surpluses and deficits in one region can be offset by transfers to and from another because the wind is always blowing somewhere.<br />
<br />
=== Offshore wind - more reliable? ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/can-offshore-wind-be-integrated-with-the-grid/ Can offshore wind be integrated with the grid?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 7 Jul 2017<br />
: This is absolutely, positively my last effort to find something good to say about wind power. Previous Energy Matters posts that highlight the difficulties of integrating intermittent wind power with the grid have been based dominantly on onshore wind data, but claims that offshore wind is significantly less erratic and will therefore be much easier to integrate with the grid have not been checked. This post reviews the question of whether it will. It finds that offshore wind is indeed less erratic than onshore wind but still nowhere near consistent enough to do away with the need for storage or conventional backup generation.<br />
<br />
=== Converting intermittent to reliable ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/grid-scale-storage-of-renewable-energy-the-impossible-dream/ Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 20 Nov 2017<br />
<br />
: The utopian ambition for variable renewable energy is to convert it into uniform firm capacity using energy storage. Here we present an analysis of actual UK wind and solar generation for the whole of 2016 at 30 minute resolution and calculate the grid-scale storage requirement. In order to deliver 4.6 GW uniform and firm RE supply throughout the year, from 26 GW of installed capacity, requires 1.8 TWh of storage. We show that this is both thermodynamically and economically implausible to implement with current technology.<br />
<br />
=== Chile ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-valhalla-solar-pumped-hydro-project/ The Valhalla solar/pumped hydro project] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 27 Dec 2017<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-chiles-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/ How Chile’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 3 Jan 2018<br />
: If pumped hydro plants that use the sea as the lower reservoir can be put into large-scale operation Chile would be able to install at least 10 TWh of pumped hydro storage along its northern coast. With it Chile could convert enough intermittent solar into dispatchable form to replace all of its current fossil fuel generation, and at a levelized cost of electricity (provisionally estimated at around $80/MWh) that would be competitive with most other dispatchable generation sources. Northern Chile’s impressive pumped hydro potential is a result of the existence of natural depressions at elevations of 500m or more adjacent to the coast that can hold very large volumes of sea water and which form ready-made upper reservoirs.<br />
<br />
=== California ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/how-californias-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/ How California’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 17 Jan 2018<br />
: In my recent Chile post I outlined a plan under which Chile’s electricity sector could go 100% renewable by developing the pumped hydro storage potential of the Atacama Desert. In this post I consider whether California might not be able to do the same thing by developing the pumped hydro storage potential that exists just across the border in Northern Mexico. The conclusion is that it probably could, but not until California legislators recognize that megawatt-hour batteries will not supply the terawatt-hours of energy storage that will be needed to support an all-renewables grid, which so far they show no signs of doing.<br />
<br />
=== Storage ===<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/battery-storage-in-perspective-solving-1-of-the-problem/ Battery storage* in perspective – solving 1% of the problem] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 19 Feb 2018<br />
: The energy world is fixated on the “huge” amounts of battery storage presently being installed to back up slowly-increasing levels of intermittent renewables generation. The feeling seems to be that as soon as enough batteries are installed to take care of daily supply/demand imbalances we will no longer need conventional dispatchable energy – solar + wind + storage will be able to do it all. Here I take another look at the realities of the situation using what I hope are some telling visual examples of what battery storage will actually do for us. As discussed in previous posts it will get us no closer to the vision of a 100% renewables-powered world than we are now.<br />
<br />
: *Note: “Battery storage” covers all storage technologies currently being considered, including thermal, compressed air, pumped hydro etc. Batteries are, however, the flavor of the moment and are expected to capture the largest share of the future energy storage market.<br />
<br />
=== Australia ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-in-australia-snowy-2-0-vs-sea-water/ Pumped hydro energy storage in Australia – Snowy 2.0 vs. sea water] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 12 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
: To support a 100% renewable electricity sector Australia will need approximately 10 terawatt-hours of long-term energy storage. The multi-billion-dollar Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project will supply only 0.35 terawatt-hours, a small fraction of this, and conventional pumped hydro potential elsewhere in Australia, including Tasmania, will not fill the gap. This post addresses the question of whether Australia might not do better to pursue sea water pumped hydro instead of Snowy 2.0-type projects. Sea water pumped hydro potential in Australia is limited by the lack of suitable coastal topography, but there are sites capable of storing very large amounts of sea water at distances of more than 20km from the coast. The question is whether these sites can be developed and operated at acceptable cost.<br />
<br />
=== Demand Response ===<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/why-demand-response-wont-work/ Why “demand response” won’t work] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 17 May 2018<br />
: Those who envision a world powered entirely by renewables assume that “demand response” will play a key role in matching intermittent generation to future demand. In this post I evaluate historic demand data from two quite different grids – Denmark and California – to determine what factors have affected demand there and how large these effects are. In both cases demand changes are closely correlated with rapidly rising electricity prices, but these have not resulted in significant demand reductions in Denmark or, arguably, any demand reductions at all in California. Attempts to flatten out California’s “duck curve” have also been unsuccessful despite punitive electricity rates during high-demand periods. The conclusion is that financial incentives and disincentives will not result in the levels of demand response necessary to support an all-renewables world.<br />
<br />
=== Scotland ===<br />
<br />
[https://euanmearns.com/scotland-gagging-on-wind-power/ Scotland Gagging on Wind Power] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 12 Jan 2015<br />
: Discussion of Scottish renewables (mainly wind) capacity development<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/wwf-masters-of-spin/ WWF – Masters of Spin] Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 5 Jan 2015<br />
: The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) issued a press release on 3rd January detailing Scottish renewable energy production for 2014. The press release is based on data provided by WeatherEnergy, an organisation whose business I have yet to establish*. Here’s how my local Press and Journal reported the story:<br />
<br />
: Wind turbines generated enough power to supply more than 100% of Scottish households on 25 out of the 31 days of December. Throughout the year wind provided enough power for the electrical needs of 98% of Scottish households with solar power meeting two-thirds or more of household electricity or hot water needs, it added.<br />
<br />
: In fact what this should say is:<br />
<br />
:: Our computer model of wind and sunshine distribution suggests that wind turbines may have provided 35% and solar photovoltaics 0.44% of Scotland’s electricity in 2014.<br />
<br />
[https://www.gq.com/story/scotland-leads-renewable-energy Why Can't America Follow Scotland to 100 Percent Renewable Energy?] Luke Darby; GQ; 31 Jan 2020<br />
: Scotland is officially on track to run on 100 percent renewable energy by the end of 2020, just in time to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference later this year. The country has been aggressively leading the way in transitioning off of fossil fuels. It closed its last coal plant in 2016 and has vastly expanded its wind and solar power infrastructure. Last year, Scotland produced 9.8 million megawatt hours of wind energy, or more than twice the power needed for all 4.47 million homes in Scotland. And the Scottish government set a legally binding resolution to get the country down to net-zero emissions by 2045, five years ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
: Officials in Scotland concede that their rapid gains are thanks to going after "low hanging fruit," obvious and relatively easy fixes that don't directly inconvenience people. Getting all the way to net-zero emissions will involve revamping transportation, private industry, and home heating, which will likely be a much bigger headache than simply transitioning from fossil-fuel power plants. <br />
<br />
: ''Comment on GQ article''<br />
:* the headline talks about "100 Percent Renewable Energy" whereas the small print in the article makes clear they're only talking about electricity, which is a small (though significant) proportion of total energy consumption, which will not be decarbonised any time soon<br />
:* the article itself gives no information about the sources of "renewable" energy in Scotland, and whether a small country with exceptional hydro, wind, wave and tidal resources in proportion to its population is a good comparison for a diverse, continent-sized country.<br />
:* Also not mentioned in the article is that Scotland has 2 nuclear power stations providing baseload, a gas plant, and interconnections to England. Scotland's net "renewable" energy production may be comfortably greater than its net energy demand, but it seems likely that nuclear, gas, and energy from south of the border will be keeping its lights on when the wind doesn't blow.<br />
<br />
==Others==<br />
<br />
[http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/16/how-the-grid-works-why-renewables-can-dominate/ How The Grid Works, & Why Renewables Can Dominate] Christopher Arcus; CleanTechnica blog; 16 Dec 2015<br />
: Claims that high levels - though not not 100% - of renewables penetration could be achieved without significant storage.<br />
<br />
[http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/07/the-environmentalist-case-against-100-renewable-energy-plans/398906/ The Environmentalist Case Against 100% Renewable Energy Plans] JULIAN SPECTOR @JulianSpector; Citylab; 20 Jul 2015 (republished on Mother Jones as [http://motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/nuclear-power-renewables-climate-change Why We Need Nuclear Power])<br />
<br />
[https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/ Leap Manifesto] (Canadian)<br />
: Energy proposals based on Jacobson<br />
<br />
----<br />
=== 50% WWS ===<br />
[https://eciu.net/news-and-events/press-releases/2018/renewables-based-smart-grid-keeps-lights-on-even-during-wind-lull-and-does-so-affordably Renewables-based ‘smart grid’ keeps lights on even during ‘wind lull’, and does so affordably] ;Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit; 22 Nov 2018<br />
: A smart grid based around wind and solar power would be able to keep Britain’s lights on even during an extreme three-week ‘wind lull’ in the middle of winter, a new analysis shows.<br />
<br />
: This is a key finding in a [https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/downloads/Smart_Grid_Report_LQ.pdf report by New Resource Partners] on the resilience of a smart, flexible power system increasingly dominated by variable renewable sources of electricity.<br />
<br />
: The report also found that by 2030, a UK electricity system where wind and solar generate 50 per cent of the country’s electricity is comparable on cost with one dominated by gas-fired power stations.<br />
<br />
[https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/downloads/Smart_Grid_Report_LQ.pdf GB Power Transition: Get Smart] <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Off Grid ==<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/will-solar-panels-and-tesla-powerwalls-meet-your-homes-energy-needs/ Will solar panels and Tesla Powerwalls meet your home’s energy needs?] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 29 Nov 2017<br />
: Tesla is now marketing its Powerwall2 storage battery for domestic applications, claiming among other things that it can make your home self-powered and blackout-proof. Here I review Tesla’s claims using an existing rooftop PV array in the Arizona desert as a real-life example. Will a few Powerwalls allow the homeowner to go off-grid? Not a chance. Will they make the home blackout-proof? Maybe, maybe not. Will they save the homeowner money on his electricity bills? Not that I can see.<br />
<br />
: The example rooftop array is in Tucson, Arizona. I selected Tucson because if a solar-Powerwall2 combination won’t work there it won’t work anywhere in the US. Except for the area around Death Valley to the northwest the solar resource is about as good as it gets, the low (about 30%) seasonal solar range means that there is no large seasonal storage requirement and seasonal generation is not in antiphase to demand, as it is in some areas farther north<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/going-off-grid-in-the-uk/ Going off-grid in the UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 6 Dec 2017<br />
: In my recent post featuring a residence in Tucson, Arizona (latitude 32 north) I found that no reasonable number of Tesla Powerwalls would allow the homeowner to go off-grid using a combination of solar and battery storage. In this post I review a residence in UK (latitude 52 north) and find, unsurprisingly, that its prospects for going off-grid with solar and Powerwalls are likewise non-existent. Further reviews show that the overgeneration approach does not work well in the UK either. The only presently-available option for a UK homeowner with a solar array who wants to go off grid is to combine solar with a backup generator.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/more-on-going-off-grid-in-uk/ More on going off-grid in UK] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 13 Dec 2017<br />
:In my previous Going off-grid post I reviewed the question of whether Tesla Powerwalls or overgeneration, considered separately, might allow a UK homeowner with a rooftop solar array to go off-grid. In this post I consider the two in combination. Once more using 10 Mossbank Way as an example I find that there are circumstances in which it might make marginal economic sense for Mossbank to install up to one Powerwall, but that again that there is no realistic combination of Powerwalls and overgeneration that would allow Mossbank to power itself year-round with solar alone. Going off-grid is again found to increase Mossbank’s electricity costs substantially no matter what combination of the two is adopted.<br />
<br />
==Critique of 100% renewables plans generally==<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118300485?via%3Dihub Real-World Challenges with a Rapid Transition to 100% Renewable Power Systems] Clara Franziska Heuberger, Niall Mac Dowell; Joule; 26 Feb 2018<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/185146/running-renewables-sure-about-future/ Running on renewables: how sure can we be about the future?] Hayley Dunning; Imperial College News; 6 Mar 2018<br />
: A variety of models predict the role renewables will play in 2050, but some may be over-optimistic, and should be used with caution, say researchers.<br />
<br />
: ... researchers at Imperial College London have urged caution when basing future energy decisions on over-optimistic models that predict that the entire system could be run on renewables by the middle of this century.<br />
<br />
: Mathematical models are used to provide future estimates by taking into account factors such as the development and adoption of new technologies to predict how much of our energy demand can be met by certain energy mixes in 2050.<br />
<br />
: These models can then be used to produce ‘pathways’ that should ensure these targets are met – such as through identifying policies that support certain types of technologies.<br />
<br />
: However the models are only as good as the data and underlying physics they are based on, and some might not always reflect ‘real-world’ challenges. For example, some models do not consider power transmission, energy storage, or system operability requirements.<br />
<br />
<br />
: Now, in a paper published in the journal Joule, Imperial researchers have shown that studies that predict whole systems can run on near-100% renewable power by 2050 may be flawed as they do not sufficiently account for reliability of the supply.<br />
<br />
: Using data for the UK, the team tested a model for 100% power generation using only wind, water and solar (WWS) power by 2050. They found that the lack of firm and dispatchable ‘backup’ energy systems – such as nuclear or power plants equipped with carbon capture systems – means the power supply would fail often enough that the system would be deemed inoperable.<br />
<br />
: The team found that even if they added a small amount of backup nuclear and biomass energy, creating a 77% WWS system, around 9% of the annual UK demand could remain unmet, leading to considerable power outages and economic damage.<br />
<br />
: "...If a specific scenario relies on a combination of hypothetical and potentially socially challenging adaptation measures, in addition to disruptive technology breakthroughs, this begins to feel like wishful thinking."<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Heard, Brook, Wigley & Bradshaw ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117304495 Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems] B.P. Heard, B.W. Brook, T.M.L. Wigley, C.J.A. Bradshaw; Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; <br />
Volume 76, September 2017, Pages 1122–1133 [paywall]<br />
: Abstract<br />
: An effective response to climate change demands rapid replacement of fossil carbon energy sources. This must occur concurrently with an ongoing rise in total global energy consumption. While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible. Of the studies published to date, 24 have forecast regional, national or global energy requirements at sufficient detail to be considered potentially credible. We critically review these studies using four novel feasibility criteria for reliable electricity systems needed to meet electricity demand this century. These criteria are: (1) consistency with mainstream energy-demand forecasts; (2) simulating supply to meet demand reliably at hourly, half-hourly, and five-minute timescales, with resilience to extreme climate events; (3) identifying necessary transmission and distribution requirements; and (4) maintaining the provision of essential ancillary services. Evaluated against these objective criteria, none of the 24 studies provides convincing evidence that these basic feasibility criteria can be met. Of a maximum possible unweighted feasibility score of seven, the highest score for any one study was four. Eight of 24 scenarios (33%) provided no form of system simulation. Twelve (50%) relied on unrealistic forecasts of energy demand. While four studies (17%; all regional) articulated transmission requirements, only two scenarios—drawn from the same study—addressed ancillary-service requirements. In addition to feasibility issues, the heavy reliance on exploitation of hydroelectricity and biomass raises concerns regarding environmental sustainability and social justice. Strong empirical evidence of feasibility must be demonstrated for any study that attempts to construct or model a low-carbon energy future based on any combination of low-carbon technology. On the basis of this review, efforts to date seem to have substantially underestimated the challenge and delayed the identification and implementation of effective and comprehensive decarbonization pathways.<br />
<br />
[http://euanmearns.com/the-dream-of-100-renewables-assessed-by-heard-et-al/ The dream of 100% renewables assessed by Heard et al] Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 12 Apr 2017<br />
: Discussion of Heard et al paper<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy Is it the right target? Is it even possible?] David Roberts; Vox; 4 Apr 2017<br />
: Imagine powering civilization entirely with energy from renewable sources: wind, sun, water (hydroelectricity), naturally occurring heat (geothermal), and plants. No coal mines, oil wells, pipelines, or coal trains. No greenhouse gas emissions, car exhaust, or polluted streams. No wars over oil, dependence on foreign suppliers, or resource shortages.<br />
<br />
: Sounds nice, right?<br />
<br />
: A growing number of activists say it is within reach. The idea has inspired ambitious commitments from an increasing number of cities, including Madison, Wisconsin, San Diego, and Salt Lake City. Advocates are pushing states to support the goal. Clean-energy enthusiasts frequently claim that we can go bigger, that it’s possible for the whole world to run on renewables — we merely lack the “political will.” So, is it true? Do we know how get to an all-renewables system? Not yet. Not really. Current modeling strongly suggests that we will need a broader portfolio of low-carbon options, including nuclear and possibly coal or natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), to get deep cuts in carbon.<br />
<br />
[https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.]<br />
David Roberts; Vox; 7 Apr 2017<br />
: Reasons for skepticism, reasons for optimism, and some tentative conclusions.<br />
<br />
: Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of those sources, for a variety of reasons. So then the question becomes, can we balance out VRE in a deeply decarbonized grid without them? Do our other dispatchable balancing options add up to something sufficient? That is the core of the dispute over 100 percent renewable energy: whether it is possible (or advisable) to decarbonize the grid without nuclear and CCS. In this post I’m going to discuss three papers that examine the subject, try to draw a few tentative conclusions, and issue a plea for open minds and flexibility.<br />
<br />
[http://seekerblog.com/2016/01/17/energiewende-and-caliwende-the-heavy-cost-of-ideology/ Energiewende and Caliwende – the Heavy Cost of Ideology] Seeker Blog; 17 Jan 2016<br />
<br />
[https://www.jpmorgan.com/cm/BlobServer/Brave_New_World_-_Annual_energy_piece.pdf A Brave New World - deep decarbonisation of energy grids] J.P.Morgan; 19 Oct 2015<br />
: we focus on Germany and its Energiewende plan (deep de-carbonization of the electricity grid in which 80% of demand is met by renewable energy), and on a California version we refer to as Caliwende. We compare these systems to the current electricity mix, and to a balanced system with a mix of renewable and nuclear energy<br />
<br />
: Our primary conclusions:<br />
* A critical part of any analysis of high-renewable systems is the cost of backup thermal power and/or storage needed to meet demand during periods of low renewable generation. These costs are substantial; as a result, levelized costs of wind and solar are not the right tools to use in assessing the total cost of a high-renewable system<br />
* Emissions. High-renewable grids reduce CO2 emissions by 65%-70% in Germany and 55%-60% in California vs. the current grid. Reason: backup thermal capacity is idle for much of the year <br />
* Costs. High-renewable grid costs per MWh are 1.9x the current system in Germany, and 1.5x in California. Costs fall to 1.6x in Germany and 1.2x in California assuming long-run “learning curve” declines in wind, solar and storage costs, higher nuclear plant costs and higher natural gas fuel costs <br />
* Storage. The cost of time-shifting surplus renewable generation via storage has fallen, but its cost, intermittent utilization and energy loss result in higher per MWh system costs when it is added <br />
* Nuclear. Balanced systems with nuclear power have lower estimated costs and CO2 emissions than high-renewable systems. However, there’s enormous uncertainty regarding the actual cost of nuclear power in the US and Europe, rendering balanced system assessments less reliable. Nuclear power is growing in Asia where plant costs are 20%-30% lower, but political, historical, economic, regulatory and cultural issues prevent these observations from being easily applied outside of Asia <br />
* Location and comparability. Germany and California rank in the top 70th and 90th percentiles with respect to their potential wind and solar energy (see Appendix I). However, actual wind and solar energy productivity is higher in California (i.e., higher capacity factors), which is the primary reason that Energiewende is more expensive per MWh than Caliwende. Regions without high quality wind and solar irradiation may find that grids dominated by renewable energy are more costly <br />
* What-ifs. National/cross-border grid expansion, storing electricity in electric car batteries, demand management and renewable energy overbuilding are often mentioned as ways of reducing the cost of high-renewable systems. However, each relies to some extent on conjecture, insufficient empirical support and/or incomplete assessments of related costs <br />
<br />
[http://www.thirdway.org/report/the-climate-challenge-can-renewables-really-do-it-alone The Climate Challenge: Can Renewables Really do it Alone?] Josh Freed, Matt Bennett, Matt Goldberg; Third Way think-tank; 16 Dec 2015<br />
: tl;dr: no<br />
<br />
[https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/can-you-make-a-wind-turbine-without-fossil-fuels-2/ Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?] Robert Wilson; Carbon Counter; 11 Jun 2015<br />
: fossil fuel requirements and CO2 emissions of steel & concrete production - relevant to nuclear etc also<br />
<br />
: THIS POST ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE<br />
<br />
[http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf Limitations of 'Renewable' Energy] Leo Smith MA (Electrical sciences); (self-published)<br />
:* Introduction<br />
:* The three necessary concepts<br />
:* What is energy and power density, and why is it important?<br />
:* The important problem of intermittency<br />
:* What is dispatch, and why is it important?<br />
::* Nuclear power, dispatch and co-operation with intermittent renewables<br />
::* Dispatching with hydro electricity or pumped storage<br />
::* Dispatching with fossil fuelled power stations<br />
:* Capacity factor, and cost benefit analysis<br />
::* Where capacity factor originated<br />
::* The cost of variability<br />
::* Deriving costs of electrical generation<br />
::* Costing mixed grids of medium intermittent renewable content<br />
::* Indirect social, financial, resource and environmental costs of intermittency<br />
:* The real economics of nuclear power.<br />
::* Safety, waste disposal, and decommissioning<br />
* A pessimistic view?<br />
<br />
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/business/climate-carbon-renewables.html Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat] EDUARDO PORTER; N Y Times; 7 Nov 2017<br />
: ... as climate diplomats gather this week in Bonn, Germany, for the 23rd Conference of the Parties under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, I would like to point their attention to a different, perhaps gloomier statistic: the world’s carbon intensity of energy.<br />
<br />
: The term refers to a measure of the amount of CO2 spewed into the air for each unit of energy consumed. It offers some bad news: It has not budged since that chilly autumn day in Kyoto 20 years ago. Even among the highly industrialized nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the carbon intensity of energy has declined by a paltry 4 percent since then, according to the International Energy Agency.<br />
<br />
: This statistic, alone, puts a big question mark over the strategies deployed around the world to replace fossil energy. In a nutshell: Perhaps renewables are not the answer.<br />
<br />
: Over the past 10 years, governments and private investors have collectively spent $2 trillion on infrastructure to draw electricity from the wind and the sun, according to estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Environmental Progress, a nonprofit that advocates nuclear power as an essential tool in the battle against climate change, says that exceeds the total cost of all nuclear plants built to date or under construction, adjusted for inflation.<br />
<br />
: Capacity from renewable sources has grown by leaps and bounds, outpacing growth from all other sources — including coal, natural gas and nuclear power — in recent years. Solar and wind capacity installed in 2015 was more than 10 times what the International Energy Agency had forecast a decade before.<br />
<br />
: Still, except for very limited exceptions, all this wind and sun has not brought about much decarbonization. Indeed, it has not added much clean power to the grid.<br />
<br />
: Environmental Progress performed an analysis of the evolution of the carbon intensity of energy in 68 countries since 1965. It found no correlation between the additions of solar and wind power and the carbon intensity of energy: Despite additions of renewable capacity, carbon intensity remained flat.<br />
<br />
[[File:Proportion clean energy hydro+nuclear v renewables by country NY Times.png]]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/ The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid] James Temple; MIT Technology Review; 27 Jul 2018<br />
: Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.<br />
<br />
== Resource requirements of renewables ==<br />
<br />
=== Netherlands (Metabolic) study ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.metabolic.nl/publications/metal-demand-renewable-electricity-generation-netherlands/ METAL DEMANDFOR RENEWABLE ELECTRICITYGENERATION IN THE NETHERLANDS] Pieter van Exter et al; Metabolic; 2018<br />
: The current global supply of several critical metals is insufficient to transition to a renewable energy system. Calculations for the Netherlands show that production of wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV) solar panels already requires a significant share of the annual global production of some critical metals.Looking at the global scale, scenarios in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement require the global production of some metals to grow at least twelvefold towards 2050, compared to today’s output. Specifically, the demand for neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium stands out. This calculation does not include the demand for these specific metals in other applications, such as electric vehicles or consumer electronics.<br />
<br />
[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3mavb/we-dont-mine-enough-rare-earth-metals-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energy We Don't Mine Enough Rare Earth Metals to Replace Fossil Fuels With Renewable Energy] Nafeez Ahmed; Vice Motherboard; 12 Dec 2018<br />
: Rare earth metals are used in solar panels and wind turbines—as well as electric cars and consumer electronics. We don't recycle them, and there's not enough to meet growing demand.<br />
<br />
: A new scientific study supported by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure warns that the renewable energy industry could be about to face a fundamental obstacle: shortages in the supply of rare metals.<br />
<br />
: To meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement, renewable energy production has to scale up fast. This means that global production of several rare earth minerals used in solar panels and wind turbines—especially neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium—must grow twelvefold by 2050.<br />
<br />
: But according to the new study by Dutch energy systems company Metabolic, the “current global supply of several critical metals is insufficient to transition to a renewable energy system.”<br />
<br />
: The study focuses on demand for rare metals in the Netherlands and extrapolates this to develop a picture of how global trends are likely to develop.<br />
<br />
: “If the rest of the world would develop renewable electricity capacity at a comparable pace with the Netherlands, a considerable shortage would arise,” the study finds. This doesn’t include other applications of rare earth metals in other electronics industries (rare earth metals are widely used in smartphones, for example). “When other applications (such as electric vehicles) are also taken into consideration, the required amount of certain metals would further increase.”<br />
<br />
: Demand for rare metals is pitched to rise exponentially across the world, and not just due to renewables. Demand is most evident in “consumer electronics, military applications, and other technical equipment in industrial applications. The growth of the global middle class from 1 billion to 3 billion people will only further accelerate this growth.”<br />
<br />
: But the study did not account for those other industries. This means the actual problem could be far more intractable. In 2017, a study in Nature found that a range of minerals essential for smartphones, laptops, electric cars and even copper wiring could face supply shortages in coming decades.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21359 Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance] Saleem H. Ali; Nature; 16 Mar 2017 ''(paywalled)''<br />
: Successful delivery of the United Nations sustainable development goals and implementation of the Paris Agreement requires technologies that utilize a wide range of minerals in vast quantities. Metal recycling and technological change will contribute to sustaining supply, but mining must continue and grow for the foreseeable future to ensure that such minerals remain available to industry. New links are needed between existing institutional frameworks to oversee responsible sourcing of minerals, trajectories for mineral exploration, environmental practices, and consumer awareness of the effects of consumption. Here we present, through analysis of a comprehensive set of data and demand forecasts, an interdisciplinary perspective on how best to ensure ecologically viable continuity of global mineral supply over the coming decades.<br />
<br />
== Actual 100% renewable installations ==<br />
<br />
''See [http://scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/Energy_mix#Mini-grids_.2F_small_100.25_renewables_projects:_Tasmania.2C_El_Hierro.2C_Ta.27u_etc Small Renewables Projects]''</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Fukushima&diff=5490Fukushima2022-07-19T12:26:45Z<p>Sisussman: /* Consequences of evacuation - Philip Thomas et al study */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 1]]<br />
[[Category: Nuclear energy]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident Fukushima nuclear accident] J.M.K.C. Donev et al.; University of Calgary Energy Education; 3 Sep 2015<br />
<br />
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a19871/fukushima-five-years-later/ Five Years Later, Cutting Through the Fukushima Myths] Andrew Karam; Popular Mechanics; 11 Mar 2016<br />
:Radiation expert Andrew Karam, who covered the disaster for Popular Mechanics in 2011 and later traveled to study the site, explains everything you need to know about Fukushima's legacy and danger five years later.<br />
<br />
: March 11, 2011 was a day of unimaginable tragedy in northern Japan, a tragedy exacerbated by the reactor meltdowns and release of contamination. But the nuclear part of this horrible day was, if the longest-lasting, certainly the least lethal event. Yet it's the part that still engenders so much fear. With the fifth anniversary of the Fukushima accident upon us this month, let's take a look at where things stand today with recovering from this calamity, and what might be happening next.<br />
<br />
[https://mothersfornuclear.org/our-thoughts/2018/3/11/fukushima-perspectivefromareactoroperatoron3/11-7yearslater Fukushima: Perspective from a Reactor Operator on 3/11 Seven Years Later] Heather; Mothers for Nuclear; 10 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
[https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/was-fallout-from-fukushima-exaggerated What was the fallout from Fukushima?] Fred Pearce; The Observer; 3 Jun 2018<br />
: Shunichi Yamashita knows a lot of about the health effects of radiation. But he is a pariah in his home country of Japan, because he insists on telling those evacuated after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident that the hazards are much less than they suppose. Could he be right?<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-glass-beads-may-tell-the-terrible-tale-of-how-the-fukushima-meltdown-unfolded Radioactive Glass Beads May Tell the Terrible Tale of How the Fukushima Meltdown Unfolded] Andrea Thompson; Scientific American; 11 Mar 2019<br />
: The microscopic particles unleashed by the plant’s explosions are also a potential environmental and health concern<br />
<br />
== Radioactivity and radiation effects ==<br />
[http://new.atmc.jp/ Radioactivity monitoring around Fukushima]<br />
: graphics and tables from atmc.jp<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
=== Politicisation and political effects ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html#disqus_thread The world has forgotten the real victims of Fukushima] Michael Hanlon; Daily Telegraph; 21 Feb 2012<br />
: A natural disaster that cost the lives of thousands of people was ignored in favour of a nuclear 'disaster’ that never was, argues Michael Hanlon.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17287740 Global fallout: Did Fukushima scupper nuclear power?] Richard Black, Environment correspondent; BBC News; <br />
10 Mar 2012<br />
<br />
== Health effects ==<br />
=== WHO ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/health-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident Health consequences of Fukushima nuclear accident] WHO news Room; 10 March 2016 <br />
{{Quote|<br />
* What happened?<br />
* What were the main radionuclides to which people were exposed?<br />
* What levels of radiation have people been exposed to?<br />
* What were the main public health consequences of the disaster?<br />
* What are the health implications of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (FDNPS) nuclear accident?<br />
* Is there a risk of radiation-induced thyroid cancer among children of Fukushima prefecture?<br />
* Is there any risk from radioactive food contamination in Japan today?<br />
* What are the public health lessons learned from the response to Fukushima?<br />
* What was WHO response?<br />
* What is being done to mitigate the public health impact of the Fukushima accident?<br />
}}<br />
: + links to other documents<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/ Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks] World Health Organisation; 28 Feb 2013<br />
{{Quote|A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On] World Health Organisation<br />
<br />
=== UNSCEAR ===<br />
[https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html "The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power station accident / UNSCEAR's assessments of levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great East-Japan earthquake and tsunami"] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation <br />
<br />
{{qq|On 11 March 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered major damage from the failure of equipment after the magnitude 9.0 great east-Japan earthquake and subsequent tsunami. It was the largest civilian nuclear accident since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Radioactive material was released from the damaged plant and tens of thousands of people were evacuated.<br />
<br />
In May 2011, the Committee embarked upon a two-year assessment of the levels and effects of radiation exposure from the accident. It reported its findings to the General Assembly in October 2013 ( A/68/46), and a detailed publication titled 'Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami' with the supporting scientific data and evaluation was issued online on 2 April 2014 [ English] [ Japanese].<br />
<br />
The main focus of the UNSCEAR 2013 Report was on assessing the exposure to radiation of various groups of the population, and the implied effects in terms of radiation-induced risks for human health and the environment. The population groups considered included residents of the Fukushima Prefecture and other prefectures in Japan; and workers, contractors and others who were engaged in the emergency work at or around the accident site. The environmental assessment addressed marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Geraldine Thomas ===<br />
[http://www.clinicaloncologyonline.net/issue/S0936-6555(16)X0003-9 Fukushima - Five Years On] Clinical Oncology; Edited by Gerry Thomas; Apr 2016<br />
: edition of journal devoted to studies of Fukushima<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761136 Is Fukushima's exclusion zone doing more harm than radiation?] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes; BBC; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: includes [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761141 interview with Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College]<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
: There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster dispute about the neutrality of this article]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601011/the-effects-of-fukushima-linger-after-five-years-but-not-from-radiation/ The Effects of Fukushima Linger After Five Years - But Not From Radiation] Richard Martin; MIT Technology Review; 10 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Norwegian study ===<br />
[http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-6605.pdf Global transport of Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to Asia, North America and Europe. Estimated doses and expected health effects] Nikolaos Evangeliou, Andreas Stohl, Yves Balkanski; Geophysical Research Abstracts; 2017<br />
{{qq|An attempt to assess exposure of the population and the environment showed that the effective dose from gamma irradiation during the first 3 months was estimated between 1−5 mSv in Fukushima and the neighbouring prefectures. In the rest of Japan, the respective doses were found to be less than 0.5 mSv, whereas in the rest of the world it was less than 0.1 mSv. Such doses are equivalent with the obtained dose from a simple X-ray; for the highly contaminated regions, they are close to the dose limit for exposure due to radon inhalation (10 mSv). The calculated dose rates from radiocesium exposure on reference organisms ranged from 0.03 to 0.18 µGy h−1, which are 2 orders of magnitude below the screening dose limit (10 µGy h−1) that could result in obvious effects on the population. However, monitoring data have shown that much higher dose rates were committed to organisms raising ecological risk for small mammals and reptiles in terms of cytogenetic damage and reproduction.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencealert.com/fukushima-s-meltdown-gave-you-about-100-bananas-worth-of-radiation Fukushima's Meltdown Gave Every Human on Earth 1,000 Bananas' Worth of Radiation] MIKE MCRAE; Science Alert; 8 MAY 2017<br />
{{qq|Assuming you've been living on Earth since the nuclear reactor at Fukushima in Japan was struck by a tsunami in March 2011, there's a good chance you copped about 1,000 bananas' worth of radiation over the past six years as a result of the meltdown.<br />
<br />
That's what the Norwegian Institute for Air Research calculated, based on how far two radioactive isotopes of caesium have spread, putting the dosage for most people outside Japan at less than 0.1 millisievert – also equivalent to receiving one X-ray.<br />
<br />
Of course, if you happened to be a little closer to the event – say, in Japan – the average dose over the few years that followed was closer to 0.5 millisieverts, which isn't even close to what you'd get if you underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan in hospital.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Thyroid cancer and effects of screening ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/pdf/thy.2017.0283.pdf Lessons from Fukushima: Latest Findings of Thyroid Cancer After the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident] Shunichi Yamashita, Shinichi Suzuki, Satoru Suzuki, Hiroki Shimura, Vladimir Saenko<br />
{{qq|The accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused a biased risk perception, which is now a pressing social problem similar to that observed after Chernobyl. Consequently, the association between radiation and the thyroid has reminded people of the reiteration of Chernobyl and brought about a simplistic way of assuming that the high incidence of thyroid cancers has been caused by radiation exposure. This, in turn, has further augmented excessive anxiety, worries, and wrong interpretations of the results of elaborate large-scale ultrasound thyroid screening, having a psychological and mental impact on those exposed to radiation.}}<br />
<br />
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full Epidemic of fear] Dennis Normile; Science; 4 Mar 2016 ''(paywalled)''<br />
<br />
[https://www.wired.com/2016/03/cancer-rates-spiked-fukushima-dont-blame-radiation/ CANCER RATES SPIKED AFTER FUKUSHIMA. BUT DON'T BLAME RADIATION] Sarah Fallon; Wired; 9 Mar 2016<br />
{{qq|Now, some people actually might have had to worry about radioactive iodine being sucked up into their thyroids: the families (especially kids) living near the Fukushima Daiichi plant. And indeed, kids in the region were screened for thyroid cancer in the years following the disaster. A piece in Science last week walks through the history of this screening, and the lessons it offers are instructive—for any human being who ever requires medical care.<br />
<br />
On its face, as Dennis Normile describes, the initial finding from screenings in Japan was super alarming. Almost half (half!) of those screened had nodules or cysts (which can potentially be or become cancerous) on their thyroids.<br />
<br />
Nuts, right? And a Japanese epidemiologist named Toshihide Tsuda published a paper in 2015 saying that the rate of thyroid cancer in those Fukushima kids was more than 600 per million—way higher than the 1 to 3 cases per million kids that you would expect. But! As Normile writes, that comparison wasn’t quite fair. The Fukushima survey used advanced ultrasound devices that can detect tiny growths, while the older data came from plain old clinical exams. Oops. You have an apples to oranges thing going on there, in terms of your diagnostic instruments.<br />
<br />
Indeed, when other scientists screened kids elsewhere in Japan using the fancy ultrasound devices, rates of cancer were anywhere from 300 to 1,300 per million. What the ultrasound devices find, then, is a whole lot of turtles.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Thyroid_screening_program Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster -- Thyroid screening program] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
== Consequences of evacuation - Philip Thomas et al study ==<br />
<br />
[https://ounews.co/science-mct/fukushima-ten-years-on-from-the-disaster-was-japans-response-right/ Fukushima: ten years on from the disaster, was Japan’s response right?] William Nuttall, professor of energy, The Open University and Philip Thomas, professor of risk management, University of Bristol; The Conversation; 10 March 2021<br />
{{q| <br />
A decade on from the tragedy, many people are still mourning the nearly 16,000 people who lost their lives to the tsunami. While no-one died from the radiation after the radiation accident at Fukushima Daiichi, roughly two thousand elderly people died prematurely as a result of their enforced evacuation and undoubtedly many more of the huge number of displaced people experienced distress. In order to minimise suffering in future nuclear accidents, there are important lessons from March 2011 that must be learned.<br />
}}<br />
{{q|<br />
How should a government react when confronted by clear evidence of radioactive material being released into the environment?<br />
We set out to determine how best to respond to a severe nuclear accident using a science-led approach.<br />
}}<br />
{{Q|<br />
It’s difficult to argue for any relocation after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan, where the calculated loss of life expectancy from staying put in the worst-affected township, Tomioka, would have been three months – less than Londoners are currently losing to air pollution.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/14/national/fukushima-evacuations-were-not-worth-the-money-study-says/ Fukushima evacuations were not worth the money, study says] WILLIAM HOLLINGWORTH; The Japan Times; 14 Mar 2016 ''[paywalled]''<br />
<br />
{{q|<br />
The costs of evacuating residents from near the Fukushima No. 1 plant and the dislocation the people experienced were greater than their expected gain in longevity, a British study has found.<br />
<br />
The researchers found that at best evacuees could expect to live eight months longer, but that some might gain only one extra day of life. They said this does not warrant ripping people from their homes and communities.<br />
<br />
The team of experts from four British universities developed a series of tests to examine the relocations after the Fukushima crisis and earlier Chernobyl disaster in 1986.<br />
<br />
After a three-year study, the academics have concluded that Japan “overreacted” by relocating 160,000 residents of Fukushima Prefecture, even though radioactive material fell on more than 30,000 sq. km of territory.<br />
<br />
“We judged that no one should have been relocated in Fukushima, and it could be argued this was a knee-jerk reaction,” said Philip Thomas, a professor of risk management at Bristol University. “It did more harm than good. An awful lot of disruption has been caused However, this is with hindsight and we are not blaming the authorities.”<br />
<br />
The team used a wide range of economic and actuarial data, as well as information from the United Nations and the Japanese government.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Stress and mental health effects ===<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk]<br />
(NY Times; 21 Sep 2015)<br />
{{Quote|<br />
No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.<br />
<br />
But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/20/national/post-quake-illnesses-kill-more-in-fukushima-than-2011-disaster Fukushima stress deaths top 3/11 toll] Japan Times; 20 Feb 2014<br />
{{Quote|FUKUSHIMA – Stress and other illnesses related to the 2011 quake and tsunami had killed 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture as of Wednesday, outnumbering the 1,607 whose deaths were directly tied to disaster-caused injuries, according to data compiled by the prefecture and local police.<br />
<br />
A prefectural official said many people “have undergone drastic changes in their lives and are still unable to map out their future plans, such as homecoming, causing increased stress on them.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html Fukushima and the Art of Knowing] Clare Leppold; Huffington Post; 18 Jun 2016<br />
{{Quote|When trying to evacuate, some were turned away from the homes of their families because radiation was misunderstood as contagious. I am told about the parents of young men, opposing their choice to marry a woman from Fukushima because it is assumed that she will not be able to bear healthy children. Some children themselves believe they will never be able to have healthy offspring in the future, because of what they have heard.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/904443906340889?comment_id=904574889661124&reply_comment_id=905119912939955&notif_t=share_reply People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes] Thoughtscapism; Facebook; 11 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|This is madness! People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes - the risk from radiation is way below what nuclear plant staff are safely allowed to be exposed to (20 mSv/year). Some of my Finnish countrymen live with the natural radiation of 7 milliSieverts. There's a brazil beach famed for it's 'healing sands', with radiation levels of 175 mSv per year. Spots of 12 mSv/year in the Fukushima area are just *fine*.<br />
<br />
"The radiation has not been the disaster. It's our response to the radiation, our fear that we've projected on to others, to say this is really dangerous. It isn't really dangerous and there are plenty of places in the world where you would live with background radiation of at least this level."<br />
<br />
" If I were to stand outside here for 12 hours a day, every day of the year, I would receive an annual extra dose of radiation of around 13 millisieverts." <br />
<br />
"...[this is] more than ten times above what the Japanese government has declared "safe" for people to return."<br />
<br />
"There are places in Cornwall in the UK where background radiation levels reach 8 millisieverts a year.<br />
<br />
The world's highest background radiation rate is found in the city of Ramsar in Iran, which has the astonishing rate of 250 millisieverts a year."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Consequences of nuclear shutdown ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-down-japans-nuclear-plants-after-fukushima-was-a-bad-idea/ Shutting Down All Of Japan’s Nuclear Plants After Fukushima Was A Bad Idea] James Conca; Forbes; 31 Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
By now, more Japanese have died from the closing of Japan's nuclear power plants following the 2011 Tohoku quake than from the tsunami and the earthquake combined, which was about 20,000 people.<br />
<br />
Of course, no one has died from any radiation released from the reactor, and no one ever will. There just wasn’t enough dose to anyone.<br />
<br />
These conclusions are now echoed across the scientific and medical communities. The [http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf latest study], from Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida and Marcella Veronesi, discusses how after [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident], when all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, there was a significant increase in electricity prices and in public mortality.<br />
<br />
The increase in price led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. An increase in mortality also occurred from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, which causes upper respiratory effects. The estimate of these combined mortalities outnumbers the mortality from the tsunami and earthquake themselves, suggesting that the knee-jerk decision to cease nuclear production was a very bad idea.<br />
<br />
The immediate urge to shut down all Japanese nuclear reactors after the event was understandable, but Japan only had 15 reactors out of 54 that were at risk of tsunamis. Shutting down these reactors was reasonable in order to determine how to make them more resistant to this particular threat.<br />
<br />
The other reactors not at risk should have continued operating during the safety review following the accident, during formation of the new nuclear regulatory authority, and during the development and implementation of the new safety measures.<br />
<br />
...<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident] Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida, Marcella Veronesi; IZA Institute of Labor Economics; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|This paper provides a large scale, empirical evaluation of unintended effects from invoking the precautionary principle after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. After the accident, all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, causing an exogenous increase in electricity prices. This increase led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increase in mortality from higher electricity prices outnumbers the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting the decision to cease nuclear production has contributed to more deaths than the accident itself.}}<br />
<br />
== Wildlife ==<br />
<br />
"Study shows animal life thriving around Fukushima" by Vicky L. Sutton-Jackson, 6 Jan 2020, [https://news.uga.edu/animal-life-thriving-around-fukushima/ University of Georgia]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Nearly a decade after the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan, researchers from the University of Georgia have found that wildlife populations are abundant in areas void of human life.<br />
<br />
The camera study, published in the Journal of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, reports that over 267,000 wildlife photos recorded more than 20 species, including wild boar, Japanese hare, macaques, pheasant, fox and the raccoon dog—a relative of the fox—in various areas of the landscape.<br />
<br />
UGA wildlife biologist James Beasley said speculation and questions have come from both the scientific community and the general public about the status of wildlife years after a nuclear accident like those in Chernobyl and Fukushima.<br />
<br />
This recent study, in addition to the team’s research in Chernobyl, provides answers to the questions.<br />
<br />
“Our results represent the first evidence that numerous species of wildlife are now abundant throughout the Fukushima Evacuation Zone, despite the presence of radiological contamination,” said Beasley, associate professor at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources.<br />
<br />
Species that are often in conflict with humans, particularly wild boar, were predominantly captured on camera in human-evacuated areas or zones, according to Beasley.<br />
<br />
“This suggests these species have increased in abundance following the evacuation of people.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
"Rewilding of Fukushima's human evacuation zone" by Phillip C Lyons, Kei Okuda, Matthew T Hamilton, Thomas G Hinton, James C Beasley; 6 Jan 2020 [https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2149 esa journals]<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
There is substantial interest in understanding the ecological impacts of the nuclear accidents at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants. However, population‐level data for large mammals have been limited, and there remains much speculation regarding the status of wildlife species in these areas. Using a network of remote cameras placed along a gradient of radiological contamination and human presence, we collected data on population‐level impacts to wildlife (that is, abundance and occupancy patterns) following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. We found no evidence of population‐level impacts in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals or gallinaceous birds, and show several species were most abundant in human‐evacuated areas, despite the presence of radiological contamination. These data provide unique evidence of the natural rewilding of the Fukushima landscape following human abandonment, and suggest that if any effects of radiological exposure in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals in the Fukushima Exclusion Zone exist, they occur at individual or molecular scales, and do not appear to manifest in population‐level responses.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Marine effects ==<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2012/06/detectable-but-not-hazardous-radioactive-marine-life-of-fukushima/ Detectable but not hazardous: radioactive marine life of Fukushima] Miriam Goldstein; Deep Sea News; 1 Jun 2012<br />
<br />
[http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/fukushima-radiation Fukushima Radiation] Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution<br />
{{Quote| Scientists continue to study the effects of radioactive contaminants on the marine environment following the earthquake, tsunamis, and resulting radiation leads from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/ True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster] Dr Martini; Deep Sea News; 28 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
On March 11th, 2011 the Tōhoku earthquake and resulting tsunami wreaked havoc on Japan. It also resulted in the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl when the tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere and ocean, contaminating groundwater, soil and seawater which effectively closed local Japanese fisheries.<br />
<br />
Rather unfortunately, it has also led to some wild speculation on the widespread dangers of Fukushima radiation on the internet. <br />
}}<br />
: ''contains Simpsons guide to radiation and debunks of some scare stories''<br />
<br />
== Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
[http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/08/unimaginable-levels-radiation-fukushima-pacific-ocean-leaks Radiation at Japan's Fukushima Reactor Is Now at 'Unimaginable' Levels] Fox News; 8 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
[[file:NOAA tsunami wave height map.jpg | 300px | right | thumb | NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, with key showing mapping of colours to wave height'']]<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170223024958/http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/02a91dbeabeb6f9cebb3de75e65dd275 Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It's Going To Get Worse)] zerohedge.com; 21 Feb 2017 ''(via Internet Archive)''<br />
{{Quote|<br />
''Story using the NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, which hasn't even cropped out the legend showing height mapping to colours''<br />
<br />
''Floats the conspiracy theory that General Electric has managed to suppress reporting on Fukushima for last 5 years''<br />
<br />
''Claims that'' "Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs" ''and that'' "the US and Canadian governments have banned their citizens from talking about Fukushima so “people don’t panic.”" ''(citing a [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468 2012 BBC News report] on the Harper government's media protocol)''<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp Oh, Fukushima] Snopes<br />
{{Quote|A chart purportedly showing radioactive water seeping into the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear plant actually depicts something else.}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/whats-really-going-on-at-fukushima/ What’s Really Going on at Fukushima?] ROBERT HUNZIKER; Counterpunch; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: ''Quotes Helen Caldicott. Also includes claims about Chernobyl, including 1 million deaths.''<br />
<br />
[http://www.realfarmacy.com/whales-die-pacific-ocean-scientists-suspect-fukushima/ Whales Continue to Die Off in Pacific Ocean: Scientists Suspect Fukushima Radiation at Fault] RealFarmacy<br />
<br />
=== USS Ronald Reagan ===<br />
[https://www.thenation.com/article/seven-years-on-sailors-exposed-to-fukushima-radiation-seek-their-day-in-court/ 7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court] Gregg Levine; The Nation; 9 Mar 2018<br />
{{Quote|Special investigation: US military personnel are sick and dying, and want the nuclear plant’s designers and owners to take responsibility.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/06/23/court-sailors-can-sue-in-us-over-japanese-nuclear-disaster/ Court: Sailors can sue in US over Japanese nuclear disaster] The Associated Press; Navy Times; 22 June 2017<br />
{{Quote|SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court says members of the U.S. Navy can pursue their lawsuit in a U.S. court alleging radiation exposure from Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the sailors for now don't have to make their legal claims in Japan. Their lawsuit accuses Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the Japanese government of conspiring to keep secret the extent of the radiation leak following a 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed thousands of people. The plaintiffs arrived off the coast of Fukushima aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other vessels to provide humanitarian aid a day after the quake. }}<br />
<br />
[https://www.health.mil/Reference-Center/Reports/2014/06/19/Radiation-Exposure-Report Letter from US DoD re Radiation Exposure on USS Ronald Regan]<br />
{{Quote|Some sailors who developed cancer and other serious health conditions allege radiation exposures while serving on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi may be the cause. There is no objective evidence that the sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi experienced radiation exposures that would result in an increase in the expected number of radiogenic diseases over time. The estimated radiation doses for all individuals in the Operation Tomodachi registry, including sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN, were very small and well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions. A detailed explanation of the data collection, methodologies, analyses, and conclusions are included in the enclosed report.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-fukushima-radiation-class-action Judge Tosses Fukushima Radiation Class Action] Bianca Bruno; Courthouse News Service; 4 Mar 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Hundreds of American sailors who filed two class actions claiming to have suffered physical abnormalities, cancer and death stemming from exposure to radiation while on a humanitarian mission to Fukushima, Japan in 2011 were dealt a blow Monday when their cases were dismissed, paving the way for their claims to be brought in Japan.<br />
<br />
U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino found in a “close call” in two separate orders, class actions brought against Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, and General Electric, should be dismissed without prejudice so the service members’ claims could be brought in Japan if they choose to revive them.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== [[Chris Busby]] ===<br />
Busby has written for the Russian state propaganda outlet RT.com: [https://www.rt.com/op-edge/335362-fukushima-nuclear-japan-bbc/ Is Fukushima's nuclear nightmare over? Don’t count on it] Chris Busby; RT; 12 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
and for [[The Ecologist]]: <br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2987398/no_matter_what_bbc_says_fukushima_disaster_is_killing_people.html No matter what BBC says: Fukushima disaster is killing people] Chris Busby; The Ecologist; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Sherman & Mangano ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION?] Joseph J. Mangano, Janette D. Sherman; International Journal of Health Services; 2012<br />
{{Quote|The multiple nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima plants beginning on March 11, 2011, are releasing large amounts of airborne radioactivity that has spread throughout Japan and to other nations; thus, studies of contamination and health hazards are merited. In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns. Some samples of radioactivity in precipitation, air, water, and milk, taken by the U.S. government, showed levels hundreds of times above normal; however, the small number of samples prohibits any credible analysis of temporal trends and spatial comparisons. U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80 percent, compared with a previous 8.37 percent decrease. Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected. These preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986, which approximated final figures.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Rebuttals of Sherman & Mangano ====<br />
<br />
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study] Michael Moyer; Scientific American; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
In June [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ I wrote about] a claim that babies in the U.S. were dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation. A close look at the accusation revealed that the data used by the authors to make the argument showed no such thing. "That data is publicly available," I wrote, "and a check reveals that [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths]." The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.<br />
<br />
Now the authors have published a revised study ([http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf PDF]) in the [http://www.baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services]. A press release published to herald the article warns, "[http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease111219FukushimaReactorFallout.html 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Fallout]." This is an alarming accusation. Let's see how the authors defend it.<br />
<br />
First, the authors assert: "In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns." They provide no evidence for this assertion, no citation to back up their facts. The authors then note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitored radioactivity in milk, water and air in the weeks and months following the disaster. Ah, here must be the data, the careful reader hopes. Alas, "the number of samples for which the EPA was able to detect measurable concentrations of radioactivity is relatively few," the authors write. They then conclude, with evident disappointment, that "clearly, the 2011 EPA reports cannot be used with confidence for any comprehensive assessment of temporal trends and spatial patterns of U.S. environmental radiation levels originating in Japan." In other words, the EPA didn't find evidence for the plume that our entire argument depends on, so "clearly" we can't trust the agency's data.<br />
<br />
Yet even if there isn't evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: "U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks....Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths." In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.<br />
<br />
To unpack a little more, the authors take mortality figures from the [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports]. I talk a little about these reports in my [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ original piece]. Suffice it to say that they are an incomplete record of deaths in the U.S. (as the authors acknowledge). The authors draw a hard line at the week of March 20, 2011, the 12th week of the year. They sum up all deaths around the country for both the 14 weeks preceding and the 14 weeks following March 20, 2011. They do the same for 2010. They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010. The 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2011 (presumably before the radiation plume arrived and spread across the land) include only 2.34 percent more dead people than the 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2010. Since the CDC only reports on about 23.5 percent of all deaths, the authors claim, they helpfully multiply the supposed "excess" by 1/0.235 to arrive at the final number of 13,893 deaths.<br />
<br />
No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are [http://www.radiation.org/ anti-nuclear activists] unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the "excess" deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.<br />
<br />
The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-health-risks-scrutin radiation from Fukushima is dangerous], and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coming-clean-about-nuclear-power serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play] in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.<br />
<br />
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.<br />
<br />
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)<br />
<br />
Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/2011/12/20/fukushima-alarmist-claim-obscure-medical-journal-proceed-caution Fukushima: Alarmist Claim? Obscure Medical Journal? Proceed With Caution] Barbara Feder Ostrov; University of Southern California Center for Health Journalism blog; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''UPDATE: Click [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n here] for a response from International Journal of Health Services Editor-in-Chief Vicente Navarro.'''<br />
<br />
The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy press release] trumpeted a startling claim: researchers had linked radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster to 14,000 deaths in the United States, with infants hardest hit.<br />
<br />
"This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima," the press release bragged in announcing the study's publication today. The press release, which compared the disaster's impact to Chernobyl, appeared via PR Newswire on mainstream news sites, including the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy Sacramento Bee] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://news.yahoo.com/medical-journal-article-14-000-u-deaths-tied-160111170.html Yahoo! News].<br />
<br />
Casual readers who didn't realize this was only a press release could be forgiven for thinking this was a spit-out-your-coffee story. But with a little online research and guidance from veteran health journalists [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer], I quickly learned that there's a lot less to [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,6,13;journal,1,165;browsepublicationsresults,7,24; this study] and to the medical journal that published it. Read on for their advice on what journalists can learn from this episode.<br />
<br />
Normally, reporters are supposed to feel better about research that's been peer-reviewed before publication in a scientific journal. But the claims of the press release were just so outlandish, warning bells went off.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, the authors, Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, published a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/is-the-increase-in-baby-deaths-in-the-us-a-result-of-fukushima-fallout/ version of this study] in the political newsletter Counterpunch, where it was quickly criticized. The critics charged that the authors [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2011/06/21/counterpunch-verifies-infant-mortality-fraud-but-seems-to-create-one-themselves/ had cherry-picked federal data on infant deaths] so they would spike around the time of the Fukushima disaster. Passions over nuclear safety further muddied the debate: both researchers and some critics had activist baggage, with the researchers characterized as anti-nuke and the critics as pro-nuke.<br />
<br />
As Scientific American's Michael Moyer [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ writes]: "The authors appeared to start from a conclusion-babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation-and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims."<br />
<br />
So how did such a seemingly flawed study wind up in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
I researched the journal, the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services], and its editor, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1041/Navarro/Vicente Vicente Navarro]. Navarro, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's prestigious school of public health, looked legit, but the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0020-7314_International_Journal_of_Health_Services journal's "impact factor"] (a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ measure of a research journal's credibility and influence]) was less impressive. (I emailed and called Navarro for comment; I'll [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n update this post] if I hear back from him.)<br />
<br />
I asked [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky], executive editor of Reuters Health and co-founder of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Retraction Watch] blog, and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.healthnewsreview.org/ Health News Review] founder [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer]: how can journalists better evaluate when to cover (and more importantly, when not to cover) the medical research stories that cross their desks?<br />
<br />
Their consensus: just because a study's peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's credible. And evaluating a journal's impact factor can be helpful, but it's not sufficient.<br />
<br />
Here's what Oransky had to say:<br />
<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
I do use impact factor to judge journals, while accepting that it's an imperfect measure that is used in all sorts of inappropriate ways (and, for the sake of full disclosure, is a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ Thomson Scientific product], as in Thomson Reuters). I find it helpful to rank journals within a particular specialty. It's not the only metric I use to figure out what to cover, but if I'm looking at a field with dozens or even more than 100 journals, it's a good first-pass filter. There's competition to publish in journals, which means high-impact journals have much lower acceptance rates. And if citations are any measure at all of whether journals are read, then they're obviously read more, too.<br />
<br />
I looked up the journal in question, and it's actually ranked 45th out of 58 in the Health Policy and Services category (in the social sciences rankings) and 59th out of 72 in the Health Care Sciences & Services category (in the science rankings).<br />
<br />
As to how this could get published in a peer-reviewed journal, well, not all peer review is created equal. Higher-ranked journals tend to have more thorough peer review. (They also, perhaps not surprisingly, have [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://bjoern.brembs.net/comment-n811.html higher rates of retractions]. Whether that's because people push the envelope to publish in them, or there are more eyeballs on them, or there's some other reason, is unclear. But there's no evidence that it's because their peer review is less thorough.)<br />
<br />
Finally, I'd refer readers to this [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html great primer on peer review] by Maggie Koerth-Baker.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Gary Schwitzer also provided these helpful tips for journalists:<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
1. Brush up on the writings of [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ John Ioannidis], who has written a great deal in recent years about the flaws in published research.<br />
<br />
2. Journalists who live on a steady diet of journal articles almost by definition promote a rose-colored view of progress in research if they don't grasp and convey the publication bias in many journals for positive findings. Negative or null findings may not be viewed as sexy enough. Or they may be squelched prior to submission. While perhaps not a factor in this one case, it nonetheless drives home the point to journalists about the need to critically evaluate studies.<br />
<br />
3. In this case, a journalist would be well-served by a friendly local biostatistician's review.<br />
<br />
4. It is always more helpful to focus on the quality of the study rather than the impact factor of the journal or the reputation of the researcher (for reasons Ivan articulated). However, these are legitimate questions to ask any published researcher: "Why did you choose to submit your work to that journal? Did you submit it elsewhere and was it rejected? If so, what feedback did you get from the peer reviewers?"<br />
}}<br />
'''Related Posts:'''<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n Fukushima Fallout and Infant Deaths: International Journal of Health Services' Vicente Navarro Responds]<br />
}}<br />
<br />
In a post [http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/ JOSEPH MANGANO NEVER STOPS, AND HE NEVER GETS IT RIGHT] on the "Nuclear Power Yes Please blog" on 29 Aug 2012, "LANTZELOT" writes:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* '''Mangano claims that the total number of deaths in Japan rose with 4.8% during 2011, compared with the "normal" increase of 1.5%.''' There is no "normal" increase of 1.5%, though for the last 20 years the average increase in the number of deaths (due to an ageing population and decreasing birth rate) has been about 2%. For individual years the increase varies drastically, being above 4% six times since 1990. Thus the 4.8% increase during 2011 is not very spectacular.<br />
<br />
* '''Out of the about 1.2 million Japanese that die every year the 4.8% increase means an excess of 57,900 deaths compared with 2010. When subtracting the victims of the tsunami and earthquake there is still an excess of 38,700 deaths with no obvious cause.''' Mangano fails to mention that also in 2010 there was an "excess" of more than 55,000 deaths, compared with the year before. Yes, that is 55,000 excess deaths without a tsunami, without the release of radioactivity, and without alarmistic claims by Mangano.<br />
<br />
* '''"38,700 deaths with no obvious cause", or "38,700 additional unexplained deaths" is repeated, implying that maybe Fukushima did it.''' The majority of the deaths are not unexplained, they are classified into about 130 different categories, carefully filed by the MHLW. There is however a category called "Other causes" which include those deaths that can not be classified according to the other categories. For 2011 this category has about 5,000 deaths, which may still sound alarming. It should be noted that this is only 150 more than for 2010, and the variation between different years may be much larger than that. Furthermore, those deaths from "other causes" are not mysterious or due to some death ray directly from Fukushima, they just do not fit into any of the other 130 categories.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{refs}}<br />
<br />
=== William T. Vollmann - No Immediate Danger ===<br />
<br />
[http://progressandperil.com/2018/04/09/the-ideology-of-fear-william-t-vollman-and-nuclear-power/ The Ideology of Fear: William T. Vollmann and Nuclear Power] Will Boisvert; Progress and Peril; 9 Apr 2018<br />
: Review of No Immediate Danger: Volume One of Carbon Ideologies<br />
<br />
=== Debunking ===<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/ Are Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Really Over?] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 2 Sep 2013<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/ More Fukushima Scaremongering Debunked] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 28 Oct 2013<br />
: "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima"<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/11/25/dire-warnings-and-melting-starfish-fukushima-fear/ Dire Warnings and Melting Starfish: Fukushima Fearmongering, Volume 3] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 25 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: The ocean is broken. <br />
* CLAIM: David Suzuki's Dire Warning. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima is as bad as 14,000 Hiroshima bombs.<br />
* CLAIM: The scary radiation map. <br />
* CLAIM: Cancer rates are spiking in Fukushima's children. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima radiation is the cause of an epidemic of melting sea stars. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/20/fukushima-fear-vol-4/ Fukushima Fear, Vol. 4: More Nonsense Than You Can Shake a Giant Squid At] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 20 Jan 2014<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: OMG! A giant squid beached itself in Santa Monica! Fukushima! <br />
* CLAIM: Two underground nuclear explosions rocked the Fukushima site on New Year's Eve, forcing Russia's Ministry of Defense to go on high alert — and causing TEPCO to quietly admit that Reactor 3 was melting down. GAME OVER!!! <br />
* CLAIM: Radioactive steam was seen pouring off Reactor 3, meaning it's in the middle of a meltdown. <br />
* CLAIM: A dude with a Geiger counter went to a California beach and found radiation levels off the charts! Evacuate the west coast at once!<br />
* CLAIM: 98% of the Pacific sea floor is covered in dead creatures nuked by Fukushima.<br />
* CLAIM: A mass die-off of sardines in the Pacific is because of Fukushima radiation. <br />
* CLAIM: California scientists are going to start monitoring kelp forests, because they know Fukushima radiation is killing us all!<br />
* CLAIM: The US government bought 14 million potassium iodide doses to protect the wealthy elite from radiation! APOCALYPSE AHOY!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.earthtouchnews.com/oceans/oceans/heres-your-go-to-source-for-debunking-all-the-fukushima-fables Here's your go-to source for debunking all the Fukushima fables] Sarah Keartes; Earth Touch News; 25 Feb 2016<br />
{{Quote|From "mutant" eels to fish "tumours", viral stories linking the Fukushima nuclear disaster to seemingly strange marine events are probably crowding your news feed. And each time one pops up, radiation-related panic spirals ensue.}}<br />
<br />
[https://m.facebook.com/1561335957440623/photos/a.1561349920772560.1073741827.1561335957440623/1681156132125271/?type=3&source=54 what you get searching Google images for Fukushima] Refutations to Anti-Nuclear Memes; facebook<br />
<br />
== Onagawa ==<br />
[http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 Onagawa: The Japanese nuclear power plant that didn’t melt down on 3/11]<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160403020718/http://energyforhumanity.org/nuclear/nuclear-is-normal-when-your-local-reactor-is-the-safest-place-in-the-world/ Nuclear is Normal: When Your Local Reactor is the Safest Place in the World] Energy For Humanity (via Internet Archive Wayback Machine); 6 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
1993. The second boiling water reactor at the Tōhoku Electric Co’s Onagawa nuclear station is completed after a three and a half year build, costing $2.64 billion in today’s US dollars. The site is already elevated and fortified beyond historical tsunami indications, the legacy of a corporate safety culture instilled by vice president Yanosuke Hirai. This diligence pervaded and persisted through the company, driving safety focus and disaster preparedness. A further unit is later constructed beside Onagawa-2. The plant operates well above average Japanese availability factor.<br />
<br />
The response of Onagawa to the natural disasters in 2011 has been detailed in the literature by senior personnel, as well as by an independent journalist. All three reactors shut down automatically, as designed, when the quake struck. Workers were quick to organise and get to work ensuring the plant’s safety. Backup power sytems including diesel generators and offsite power lines were safe from the waves and continued to cool the decay heat within the reactor cores. Tsunami damage was limited to a non-safety switchgear fire and auxiliary building flooding.<br />
<br />
The safety and electricity at the plant in the midst of unprecedented devastation drew local survivors. Hundreds of people were housed in Onagawa’s gymnasium for three months and provided with warmth and supplies.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Cleanup ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ Clearing the Radioactive Rubble Heap That Was Fukushima Daiichi, 7 Years On] Tim Hornyak; Scientific American; 9 Mar 2018<br />
: The water is tainted, the wreckage is dangerous, and disposing of it will be a prolonged, complex and costly process</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Fukushima&diff=5489Fukushima2022-07-19T12:14:50Z<p>Sisussman: /* Consequences of evacuation - Philip Thomas et al study */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 1]]<br />
[[Category: Nuclear energy]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident Fukushima nuclear accident] J.M.K.C. Donev et al.; University of Calgary Energy Education; 3 Sep 2015<br />
<br />
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a19871/fukushima-five-years-later/ Five Years Later, Cutting Through the Fukushima Myths] Andrew Karam; Popular Mechanics; 11 Mar 2016<br />
:Radiation expert Andrew Karam, who covered the disaster for Popular Mechanics in 2011 and later traveled to study the site, explains everything you need to know about Fukushima's legacy and danger five years later.<br />
<br />
: March 11, 2011 was a day of unimaginable tragedy in northern Japan, a tragedy exacerbated by the reactor meltdowns and release of contamination. But the nuclear part of this horrible day was, if the longest-lasting, certainly the least lethal event. Yet it's the part that still engenders so much fear. With the fifth anniversary of the Fukushima accident upon us this month, let's take a look at where things stand today with recovering from this calamity, and what might be happening next.<br />
<br />
[https://mothersfornuclear.org/our-thoughts/2018/3/11/fukushima-perspectivefromareactoroperatoron3/11-7yearslater Fukushima: Perspective from a Reactor Operator on 3/11 Seven Years Later] Heather; Mothers for Nuclear; 10 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
[https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/was-fallout-from-fukushima-exaggerated What was the fallout from Fukushima?] Fred Pearce; The Observer; 3 Jun 2018<br />
: Shunichi Yamashita knows a lot of about the health effects of radiation. But he is a pariah in his home country of Japan, because he insists on telling those evacuated after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident that the hazards are much less than they suppose. Could he be right?<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-glass-beads-may-tell-the-terrible-tale-of-how-the-fukushima-meltdown-unfolded Radioactive Glass Beads May Tell the Terrible Tale of How the Fukushima Meltdown Unfolded] Andrea Thompson; Scientific American; 11 Mar 2019<br />
: The microscopic particles unleashed by the plant’s explosions are also a potential environmental and health concern<br />
<br />
== Radioactivity and radiation effects ==<br />
[http://new.atmc.jp/ Radioactivity monitoring around Fukushima]<br />
: graphics and tables from atmc.jp<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
=== Politicisation and political effects ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html#disqus_thread The world has forgotten the real victims of Fukushima] Michael Hanlon; Daily Telegraph; 21 Feb 2012<br />
: A natural disaster that cost the lives of thousands of people was ignored in favour of a nuclear 'disaster’ that never was, argues Michael Hanlon.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17287740 Global fallout: Did Fukushima scupper nuclear power?] Richard Black, Environment correspondent; BBC News; <br />
10 Mar 2012<br />
<br />
== Health effects ==<br />
=== WHO ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/health-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident Health consequences of Fukushima nuclear accident] WHO news Room; 10 March 2016 <br />
{{Quote|<br />
* What happened?<br />
* What were the main radionuclides to which people were exposed?<br />
* What levels of radiation have people been exposed to?<br />
* What were the main public health consequences of the disaster?<br />
* What are the health implications of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (FDNPS) nuclear accident?<br />
* Is there a risk of radiation-induced thyroid cancer among children of Fukushima prefecture?<br />
* Is there any risk from radioactive food contamination in Japan today?<br />
* What are the public health lessons learned from the response to Fukushima?<br />
* What was WHO response?<br />
* What is being done to mitigate the public health impact of the Fukushima accident?<br />
}}<br />
: + links to other documents<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/ Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks] World Health Organisation; 28 Feb 2013<br />
{{Quote|A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On] World Health Organisation<br />
<br />
=== UNSCEAR ===<br />
[https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html "The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power station accident / UNSCEAR's assessments of levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great East-Japan earthquake and tsunami"] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation <br />
<br />
{{qq|On 11 March 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered major damage from the failure of equipment after the magnitude 9.0 great east-Japan earthquake and subsequent tsunami. It was the largest civilian nuclear accident since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Radioactive material was released from the damaged plant and tens of thousands of people were evacuated.<br />
<br />
In May 2011, the Committee embarked upon a two-year assessment of the levels and effects of radiation exposure from the accident. It reported its findings to the General Assembly in October 2013 ( A/68/46), and a detailed publication titled 'Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami' with the supporting scientific data and evaluation was issued online on 2 April 2014 [ English] [ Japanese].<br />
<br />
The main focus of the UNSCEAR 2013 Report was on assessing the exposure to radiation of various groups of the population, and the implied effects in terms of radiation-induced risks for human health and the environment. The population groups considered included residents of the Fukushima Prefecture and other prefectures in Japan; and workers, contractors and others who were engaged in the emergency work at or around the accident site. The environmental assessment addressed marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Geraldine Thomas ===<br />
[http://www.clinicaloncologyonline.net/issue/S0936-6555(16)X0003-9 Fukushima - Five Years On] Clinical Oncology; Edited by Gerry Thomas; Apr 2016<br />
: edition of journal devoted to studies of Fukushima<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761136 Is Fukushima's exclusion zone doing more harm than radiation?] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes; BBC; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: includes [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761141 interview with Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College]<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
: There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster dispute about the neutrality of this article]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601011/the-effects-of-fukushima-linger-after-five-years-but-not-from-radiation/ The Effects of Fukushima Linger After Five Years - But Not From Radiation] Richard Martin; MIT Technology Review; 10 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Norwegian study ===<br />
[http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-6605.pdf Global transport of Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to Asia, North America and Europe. Estimated doses and expected health effects] Nikolaos Evangeliou, Andreas Stohl, Yves Balkanski; Geophysical Research Abstracts; 2017<br />
{{qq|An attempt to assess exposure of the population and the environment showed that the effective dose from gamma irradiation during the first 3 months was estimated between 1−5 mSv in Fukushima and the neighbouring prefectures. In the rest of Japan, the respective doses were found to be less than 0.5 mSv, whereas in the rest of the world it was less than 0.1 mSv. Such doses are equivalent with the obtained dose from a simple X-ray; for the highly contaminated regions, they are close to the dose limit for exposure due to radon inhalation (10 mSv). The calculated dose rates from radiocesium exposure on reference organisms ranged from 0.03 to 0.18 µGy h−1, which are 2 orders of magnitude below the screening dose limit (10 µGy h−1) that could result in obvious effects on the population. However, monitoring data have shown that much higher dose rates were committed to organisms raising ecological risk for small mammals and reptiles in terms of cytogenetic damage and reproduction.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencealert.com/fukushima-s-meltdown-gave-you-about-100-bananas-worth-of-radiation Fukushima's Meltdown Gave Every Human on Earth 1,000 Bananas' Worth of Radiation] MIKE MCRAE; Science Alert; 8 MAY 2017<br />
{{qq|Assuming you've been living on Earth since the nuclear reactor at Fukushima in Japan was struck by a tsunami in March 2011, there's a good chance you copped about 1,000 bananas' worth of radiation over the past six years as a result of the meltdown.<br />
<br />
That's what the Norwegian Institute for Air Research calculated, based on how far two radioactive isotopes of caesium have spread, putting the dosage for most people outside Japan at less than 0.1 millisievert – also equivalent to receiving one X-ray.<br />
<br />
Of course, if you happened to be a little closer to the event – say, in Japan – the average dose over the few years that followed was closer to 0.5 millisieverts, which isn't even close to what you'd get if you underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan in hospital.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Thyroid cancer and effects of screening ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/pdf/thy.2017.0283.pdf Lessons from Fukushima: Latest Findings of Thyroid Cancer After the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident] Shunichi Yamashita, Shinichi Suzuki, Satoru Suzuki, Hiroki Shimura, Vladimir Saenko<br />
{{qq|The accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused a biased risk perception, which is now a pressing social problem similar to that observed after Chernobyl. Consequently, the association between radiation and the thyroid has reminded people of the reiteration of Chernobyl and brought about a simplistic way of assuming that the high incidence of thyroid cancers has been caused by radiation exposure. This, in turn, has further augmented excessive anxiety, worries, and wrong interpretations of the results of elaborate large-scale ultrasound thyroid screening, having a psychological and mental impact on those exposed to radiation.}}<br />
<br />
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full Epidemic of fear] Dennis Normile; Science; 4 Mar 2016 ''(paywalled)''<br />
<br />
[https://www.wired.com/2016/03/cancer-rates-spiked-fukushima-dont-blame-radiation/ CANCER RATES SPIKED AFTER FUKUSHIMA. BUT DON'T BLAME RADIATION] Sarah Fallon; Wired; 9 Mar 2016<br />
{{qq|Now, some people actually might have had to worry about radioactive iodine being sucked up into their thyroids: the families (especially kids) living near the Fukushima Daiichi plant. And indeed, kids in the region were screened for thyroid cancer in the years following the disaster. A piece in Science last week walks through the history of this screening, and the lessons it offers are instructive—for any human being who ever requires medical care.<br />
<br />
On its face, as Dennis Normile describes, the initial finding from screenings in Japan was super alarming. Almost half (half!) of those screened had nodules or cysts (which can potentially be or become cancerous) on their thyroids.<br />
<br />
Nuts, right? And a Japanese epidemiologist named Toshihide Tsuda published a paper in 2015 saying that the rate of thyroid cancer in those Fukushima kids was more than 600 per million—way higher than the 1 to 3 cases per million kids that you would expect. But! As Normile writes, that comparison wasn’t quite fair. The Fukushima survey used advanced ultrasound devices that can detect tiny growths, while the older data came from plain old clinical exams. Oops. You have an apples to oranges thing going on there, in terms of your diagnostic instruments.<br />
<br />
Indeed, when other scientists screened kids elsewhere in Japan using the fancy ultrasound devices, rates of cancer were anywhere from 300 to 1,300 per million. What the ultrasound devices find, then, is a whole lot of turtles.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Thyroid_screening_program Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster -- Thyroid screening program] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
== Consequences of evacuation - Philip Thomas et al study ==<br />
[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/14/national/fukushima-evacuations-were-not-worth-the-money-study-says/ Fukushima evacuations were not worth the money, study says] WILLIAM HOLLINGWORTH; The Japan Times; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
{{q|<br />
The costs of evacuating residents from near the Fukushima No. 1 plant and the dislocation the people experienced were greater than their expected gain in longevity, a British study has found.<br />
<br />
The researchers found that at best evacuees could expect to live eight months longer, but that some might gain only one extra day of life. They said this does not warrant ripping people from their homes and communities.<br />
<br />
The team of experts from four British universities developed a series of tests to examine the relocations after the Fukushima crisis and earlier Chernobyl disaster in 1986.<br />
<br />
After a three-year study, the academics have concluded that Japan “overreacted” by relocating 160,000 residents of Fukushima Prefecture, even though radioactive material fell on more than 30,000 sq. km of territory.<br />
<br />
“We judged that no one should have been relocated in Fukushima, and it could be argued this was a knee-jerk reaction,” said Philip Thomas, a professor of risk management at Bristol University. “It did more harm than good. An awful lot of disruption has been caused However, this is with hindsight and we are not blaming the authorities.”<br />
<br />
The team used a wide range of economic and actuarial data, as well as information from the United Nations and the Japanese government.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Stress and mental health effects ===<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk]<br />
(NY Times; 21 Sep 2015)<br />
{{Quote|<br />
No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.<br />
<br />
But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/20/national/post-quake-illnesses-kill-more-in-fukushima-than-2011-disaster Fukushima stress deaths top 3/11 toll] Japan Times; 20 Feb 2014<br />
{{Quote|FUKUSHIMA – Stress and other illnesses related to the 2011 quake and tsunami had killed 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture as of Wednesday, outnumbering the 1,607 whose deaths were directly tied to disaster-caused injuries, according to data compiled by the prefecture and local police.<br />
<br />
A prefectural official said many people “have undergone drastic changes in their lives and are still unable to map out their future plans, such as homecoming, causing increased stress on them.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html Fukushima and the Art of Knowing] Clare Leppold; Huffington Post; 18 Jun 2016<br />
{{Quote|When trying to evacuate, some were turned away from the homes of their families because radiation was misunderstood as contagious. I am told about the parents of young men, opposing their choice to marry a woman from Fukushima because it is assumed that she will not be able to bear healthy children. Some children themselves believe they will never be able to have healthy offspring in the future, because of what they have heard.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/904443906340889?comment_id=904574889661124&reply_comment_id=905119912939955&notif_t=share_reply People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes] Thoughtscapism; Facebook; 11 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|This is madness! People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes - the risk from radiation is way below what nuclear plant staff are safely allowed to be exposed to (20 mSv/year). Some of my Finnish countrymen live with the natural radiation of 7 milliSieverts. There's a brazil beach famed for it's 'healing sands', with radiation levels of 175 mSv per year. Spots of 12 mSv/year in the Fukushima area are just *fine*.<br />
<br />
"The radiation has not been the disaster. It's our response to the radiation, our fear that we've projected on to others, to say this is really dangerous. It isn't really dangerous and there are plenty of places in the world where you would live with background radiation of at least this level."<br />
<br />
" If I were to stand outside here for 12 hours a day, every day of the year, I would receive an annual extra dose of radiation of around 13 millisieverts." <br />
<br />
"...[this is] more than ten times above what the Japanese government has declared "safe" for people to return."<br />
<br />
"There are places in Cornwall in the UK where background radiation levels reach 8 millisieverts a year.<br />
<br />
The world's highest background radiation rate is found in the city of Ramsar in Iran, which has the astonishing rate of 250 millisieverts a year."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Consequences of nuclear shutdown ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-down-japans-nuclear-plants-after-fukushima-was-a-bad-idea/ Shutting Down All Of Japan’s Nuclear Plants After Fukushima Was A Bad Idea] James Conca; Forbes; 31 Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
By now, more Japanese have died from the closing of Japan's nuclear power plants following the 2011 Tohoku quake than from the tsunami and the earthquake combined, which was about 20,000 people.<br />
<br />
Of course, no one has died from any radiation released from the reactor, and no one ever will. There just wasn’t enough dose to anyone.<br />
<br />
These conclusions are now echoed across the scientific and medical communities. The [http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf latest study], from Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida and Marcella Veronesi, discusses how after [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident], when all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, there was a significant increase in electricity prices and in public mortality.<br />
<br />
The increase in price led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. An increase in mortality also occurred from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, which causes upper respiratory effects. The estimate of these combined mortalities outnumbers the mortality from the tsunami and earthquake themselves, suggesting that the knee-jerk decision to cease nuclear production was a very bad idea.<br />
<br />
The immediate urge to shut down all Japanese nuclear reactors after the event was understandable, but Japan only had 15 reactors out of 54 that were at risk of tsunamis. Shutting down these reactors was reasonable in order to determine how to make them more resistant to this particular threat.<br />
<br />
The other reactors not at risk should have continued operating during the safety review following the accident, during formation of the new nuclear regulatory authority, and during the development and implementation of the new safety measures.<br />
<br />
...<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident] Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida, Marcella Veronesi; IZA Institute of Labor Economics; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|This paper provides a large scale, empirical evaluation of unintended effects from invoking the precautionary principle after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. After the accident, all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, causing an exogenous increase in electricity prices. This increase led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increase in mortality from higher electricity prices outnumbers the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting the decision to cease nuclear production has contributed to more deaths than the accident itself.}}<br />
<br />
== Wildlife ==<br />
<br />
"Study shows animal life thriving around Fukushima" by Vicky L. Sutton-Jackson, 6 Jan 2020, [https://news.uga.edu/animal-life-thriving-around-fukushima/ University of Georgia]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Nearly a decade after the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan, researchers from the University of Georgia have found that wildlife populations are abundant in areas void of human life.<br />
<br />
The camera study, published in the Journal of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, reports that over 267,000 wildlife photos recorded more than 20 species, including wild boar, Japanese hare, macaques, pheasant, fox and the raccoon dog—a relative of the fox—in various areas of the landscape.<br />
<br />
UGA wildlife biologist James Beasley said speculation and questions have come from both the scientific community and the general public about the status of wildlife years after a nuclear accident like those in Chernobyl and Fukushima.<br />
<br />
This recent study, in addition to the team’s research in Chernobyl, provides answers to the questions.<br />
<br />
“Our results represent the first evidence that numerous species of wildlife are now abundant throughout the Fukushima Evacuation Zone, despite the presence of radiological contamination,” said Beasley, associate professor at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources.<br />
<br />
Species that are often in conflict with humans, particularly wild boar, were predominantly captured on camera in human-evacuated areas or zones, according to Beasley.<br />
<br />
“This suggests these species have increased in abundance following the evacuation of people.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
"Rewilding of Fukushima's human evacuation zone" by Phillip C Lyons, Kei Okuda, Matthew T Hamilton, Thomas G Hinton, James C Beasley; 6 Jan 2020 [https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2149 esa journals]<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
There is substantial interest in understanding the ecological impacts of the nuclear accidents at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants. However, population‐level data for large mammals have been limited, and there remains much speculation regarding the status of wildlife species in these areas. Using a network of remote cameras placed along a gradient of radiological contamination and human presence, we collected data on population‐level impacts to wildlife (that is, abundance and occupancy patterns) following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. We found no evidence of population‐level impacts in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals or gallinaceous birds, and show several species were most abundant in human‐evacuated areas, despite the presence of radiological contamination. These data provide unique evidence of the natural rewilding of the Fukushima landscape following human abandonment, and suggest that if any effects of radiological exposure in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals in the Fukushima Exclusion Zone exist, they occur at individual or molecular scales, and do not appear to manifest in population‐level responses.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Marine effects ==<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2012/06/detectable-but-not-hazardous-radioactive-marine-life-of-fukushima/ Detectable but not hazardous: radioactive marine life of Fukushima] Miriam Goldstein; Deep Sea News; 1 Jun 2012<br />
<br />
[http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/fukushima-radiation Fukushima Radiation] Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution<br />
{{Quote| Scientists continue to study the effects of radioactive contaminants on the marine environment following the earthquake, tsunamis, and resulting radiation leads from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/ True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster] Dr Martini; Deep Sea News; 28 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
On March 11th, 2011 the Tōhoku earthquake and resulting tsunami wreaked havoc on Japan. It also resulted in the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl when the tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere and ocean, contaminating groundwater, soil and seawater which effectively closed local Japanese fisheries.<br />
<br />
Rather unfortunately, it has also led to some wild speculation on the widespread dangers of Fukushima radiation on the internet. <br />
}}<br />
: ''contains Simpsons guide to radiation and debunks of some scare stories''<br />
<br />
== Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
[http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/08/unimaginable-levels-radiation-fukushima-pacific-ocean-leaks Radiation at Japan's Fukushima Reactor Is Now at 'Unimaginable' Levels] Fox News; 8 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
[[file:NOAA tsunami wave height map.jpg | 300px | right | thumb | NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, with key showing mapping of colours to wave height'']]<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170223024958/http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/02a91dbeabeb6f9cebb3de75e65dd275 Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It's Going To Get Worse)] zerohedge.com; 21 Feb 2017 ''(via Internet Archive)''<br />
{{Quote|<br />
''Story using the NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, which hasn't even cropped out the legend showing height mapping to colours''<br />
<br />
''Floats the conspiracy theory that General Electric has managed to suppress reporting on Fukushima for last 5 years''<br />
<br />
''Claims that'' "Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs" ''and that'' "the US and Canadian governments have banned their citizens from talking about Fukushima so “people don’t panic.”" ''(citing a [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468 2012 BBC News report] on the Harper government's media protocol)''<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp Oh, Fukushima] Snopes<br />
{{Quote|A chart purportedly showing radioactive water seeping into the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear plant actually depicts something else.}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/whats-really-going-on-at-fukushima/ What’s Really Going on at Fukushima?] ROBERT HUNZIKER; Counterpunch; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: ''Quotes Helen Caldicott. Also includes claims about Chernobyl, including 1 million deaths.''<br />
<br />
[http://www.realfarmacy.com/whales-die-pacific-ocean-scientists-suspect-fukushima/ Whales Continue to Die Off in Pacific Ocean: Scientists Suspect Fukushima Radiation at Fault] RealFarmacy<br />
<br />
=== USS Ronald Reagan ===<br />
[https://www.thenation.com/article/seven-years-on-sailors-exposed-to-fukushima-radiation-seek-their-day-in-court/ 7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court] Gregg Levine; The Nation; 9 Mar 2018<br />
{{Quote|Special investigation: US military personnel are sick and dying, and want the nuclear plant’s designers and owners to take responsibility.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/06/23/court-sailors-can-sue-in-us-over-japanese-nuclear-disaster/ Court: Sailors can sue in US over Japanese nuclear disaster] The Associated Press; Navy Times; 22 June 2017<br />
{{Quote|SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court says members of the U.S. Navy can pursue their lawsuit in a U.S. court alleging radiation exposure from Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the sailors for now don't have to make their legal claims in Japan. Their lawsuit accuses Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the Japanese government of conspiring to keep secret the extent of the radiation leak following a 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed thousands of people. The plaintiffs arrived off the coast of Fukushima aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other vessels to provide humanitarian aid a day after the quake. }}<br />
<br />
[https://www.health.mil/Reference-Center/Reports/2014/06/19/Radiation-Exposure-Report Letter from US DoD re Radiation Exposure on USS Ronald Regan]<br />
{{Quote|Some sailors who developed cancer and other serious health conditions allege radiation exposures while serving on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi may be the cause. There is no objective evidence that the sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi experienced radiation exposures that would result in an increase in the expected number of radiogenic diseases over time. The estimated radiation doses for all individuals in the Operation Tomodachi registry, including sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN, were very small and well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions. A detailed explanation of the data collection, methodologies, analyses, and conclusions are included in the enclosed report.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-fukushima-radiation-class-action Judge Tosses Fukushima Radiation Class Action] Bianca Bruno; Courthouse News Service; 4 Mar 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Hundreds of American sailors who filed two class actions claiming to have suffered physical abnormalities, cancer and death stemming from exposure to radiation while on a humanitarian mission to Fukushima, Japan in 2011 were dealt a blow Monday when their cases were dismissed, paving the way for their claims to be brought in Japan.<br />
<br />
U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino found in a “close call” in two separate orders, class actions brought against Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, and General Electric, should be dismissed without prejudice so the service members’ claims could be brought in Japan if they choose to revive them.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== [[Chris Busby]] ===<br />
Busby has written for the Russian state propaganda outlet RT.com: [https://www.rt.com/op-edge/335362-fukushima-nuclear-japan-bbc/ Is Fukushima's nuclear nightmare over? Don’t count on it] Chris Busby; RT; 12 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
and for [[The Ecologist]]: <br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2987398/no_matter_what_bbc_says_fukushima_disaster_is_killing_people.html No matter what BBC says: Fukushima disaster is killing people] Chris Busby; The Ecologist; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Sherman & Mangano ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION?] Joseph J. Mangano, Janette D. Sherman; International Journal of Health Services; 2012<br />
{{Quote|The multiple nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima plants beginning on March 11, 2011, are releasing large amounts of airborne radioactivity that has spread throughout Japan and to other nations; thus, studies of contamination and health hazards are merited. In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns. Some samples of radioactivity in precipitation, air, water, and milk, taken by the U.S. government, showed levels hundreds of times above normal; however, the small number of samples prohibits any credible analysis of temporal trends and spatial comparisons. U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80 percent, compared with a previous 8.37 percent decrease. Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected. These preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986, which approximated final figures.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Rebuttals of Sherman & Mangano ====<br />
<br />
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study] Michael Moyer; Scientific American; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
In June [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ I wrote about] a claim that babies in the U.S. were dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation. A close look at the accusation revealed that the data used by the authors to make the argument showed no such thing. "That data is publicly available," I wrote, "and a check reveals that [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths]." The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.<br />
<br />
Now the authors have published a revised study ([http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf PDF]) in the [http://www.baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services]. A press release published to herald the article warns, "[http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease111219FukushimaReactorFallout.html 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Fallout]." This is an alarming accusation. Let's see how the authors defend it.<br />
<br />
First, the authors assert: "In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns." They provide no evidence for this assertion, no citation to back up their facts. The authors then note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitored radioactivity in milk, water and air in the weeks and months following the disaster. Ah, here must be the data, the careful reader hopes. Alas, "the number of samples for which the EPA was able to detect measurable concentrations of radioactivity is relatively few," the authors write. They then conclude, with evident disappointment, that "clearly, the 2011 EPA reports cannot be used with confidence for any comprehensive assessment of temporal trends and spatial patterns of U.S. environmental radiation levels originating in Japan." In other words, the EPA didn't find evidence for the plume that our entire argument depends on, so "clearly" we can't trust the agency's data.<br />
<br />
Yet even if there isn't evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: "U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks....Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths." In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.<br />
<br />
To unpack a little more, the authors take mortality figures from the [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports]. I talk a little about these reports in my [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ original piece]. Suffice it to say that they are an incomplete record of deaths in the U.S. (as the authors acknowledge). The authors draw a hard line at the week of March 20, 2011, the 12th week of the year. They sum up all deaths around the country for both the 14 weeks preceding and the 14 weeks following March 20, 2011. They do the same for 2010. They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010. The 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2011 (presumably before the radiation plume arrived and spread across the land) include only 2.34 percent more dead people than the 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2010. Since the CDC only reports on about 23.5 percent of all deaths, the authors claim, they helpfully multiply the supposed "excess" by 1/0.235 to arrive at the final number of 13,893 deaths.<br />
<br />
No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are [http://www.radiation.org/ anti-nuclear activists] unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the "excess" deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.<br />
<br />
The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-health-risks-scrutin radiation from Fukushima is dangerous], and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coming-clean-about-nuclear-power serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play] in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.<br />
<br />
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.<br />
<br />
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)<br />
<br />
Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/2011/12/20/fukushima-alarmist-claim-obscure-medical-journal-proceed-caution Fukushima: Alarmist Claim? Obscure Medical Journal? Proceed With Caution] Barbara Feder Ostrov; University of Southern California Center for Health Journalism blog; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''UPDATE: Click [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n here] for a response from International Journal of Health Services Editor-in-Chief Vicente Navarro.'''<br />
<br />
The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy press release] trumpeted a startling claim: researchers had linked radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster to 14,000 deaths in the United States, with infants hardest hit.<br />
<br />
"This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima," the press release bragged in announcing the study's publication today. The press release, which compared the disaster's impact to Chernobyl, appeared via PR Newswire on mainstream news sites, including the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy Sacramento Bee] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://news.yahoo.com/medical-journal-article-14-000-u-deaths-tied-160111170.html Yahoo! News].<br />
<br />
Casual readers who didn't realize this was only a press release could be forgiven for thinking this was a spit-out-your-coffee story. But with a little online research and guidance from veteran health journalists [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer], I quickly learned that there's a lot less to [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,6,13;journal,1,165;browsepublicationsresults,7,24; this study] and to the medical journal that published it. Read on for their advice on what journalists can learn from this episode.<br />
<br />
Normally, reporters are supposed to feel better about research that's been peer-reviewed before publication in a scientific journal. But the claims of the press release were just so outlandish, warning bells went off.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, the authors, Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, published a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/is-the-increase-in-baby-deaths-in-the-us-a-result-of-fukushima-fallout/ version of this study] in the political newsletter Counterpunch, where it was quickly criticized. The critics charged that the authors [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2011/06/21/counterpunch-verifies-infant-mortality-fraud-but-seems-to-create-one-themselves/ had cherry-picked federal data on infant deaths] so they would spike around the time of the Fukushima disaster. Passions over nuclear safety further muddied the debate: both researchers and some critics had activist baggage, with the researchers characterized as anti-nuke and the critics as pro-nuke.<br />
<br />
As Scientific American's Michael Moyer [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ writes]: "The authors appeared to start from a conclusion-babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation-and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims."<br />
<br />
So how did such a seemingly flawed study wind up in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
I researched the journal, the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services], and its editor, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1041/Navarro/Vicente Vicente Navarro]. Navarro, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's prestigious school of public health, looked legit, but the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0020-7314_International_Journal_of_Health_Services journal's "impact factor"] (a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ measure of a research journal's credibility and influence]) was less impressive. (I emailed and called Navarro for comment; I'll [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n update this post] if I hear back from him.)<br />
<br />
I asked [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky], executive editor of Reuters Health and co-founder of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Retraction Watch] blog, and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.healthnewsreview.org/ Health News Review] founder [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer]: how can journalists better evaluate when to cover (and more importantly, when not to cover) the medical research stories that cross their desks?<br />
<br />
Their consensus: just because a study's peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's credible. And evaluating a journal's impact factor can be helpful, but it's not sufficient.<br />
<br />
Here's what Oransky had to say:<br />
<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
I do use impact factor to judge journals, while accepting that it's an imperfect measure that is used in all sorts of inappropriate ways (and, for the sake of full disclosure, is a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ Thomson Scientific product], as in Thomson Reuters). I find it helpful to rank journals within a particular specialty. It's not the only metric I use to figure out what to cover, but if I'm looking at a field with dozens or even more than 100 journals, it's a good first-pass filter. There's competition to publish in journals, which means high-impact journals have much lower acceptance rates. And if citations are any measure at all of whether journals are read, then they're obviously read more, too.<br />
<br />
I looked up the journal in question, and it's actually ranked 45th out of 58 in the Health Policy and Services category (in the social sciences rankings) and 59th out of 72 in the Health Care Sciences & Services category (in the science rankings).<br />
<br />
As to how this could get published in a peer-reviewed journal, well, not all peer review is created equal. Higher-ranked journals tend to have more thorough peer review. (They also, perhaps not surprisingly, have [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://bjoern.brembs.net/comment-n811.html higher rates of retractions]. Whether that's because people push the envelope to publish in them, or there are more eyeballs on them, or there's some other reason, is unclear. But there's no evidence that it's because their peer review is less thorough.)<br />
<br />
Finally, I'd refer readers to this [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html great primer on peer review] by Maggie Koerth-Baker.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Gary Schwitzer also provided these helpful tips for journalists:<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
1. Brush up on the writings of [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ John Ioannidis], who has written a great deal in recent years about the flaws in published research.<br />
<br />
2. Journalists who live on a steady diet of journal articles almost by definition promote a rose-colored view of progress in research if they don't grasp and convey the publication bias in many journals for positive findings. Negative or null findings may not be viewed as sexy enough. Or they may be squelched prior to submission. While perhaps not a factor in this one case, it nonetheless drives home the point to journalists about the need to critically evaluate studies.<br />
<br />
3. In this case, a journalist would be well-served by a friendly local biostatistician's review.<br />
<br />
4. It is always more helpful to focus on the quality of the study rather than the impact factor of the journal or the reputation of the researcher (for reasons Ivan articulated). However, these are legitimate questions to ask any published researcher: "Why did you choose to submit your work to that journal? Did you submit it elsewhere and was it rejected? If so, what feedback did you get from the peer reviewers?"<br />
}}<br />
'''Related Posts:'''<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n Fukushima Fallout and Infant Deaths: International Journal of Health Services' Vicente Navarro Responds]<br />
}}<br />
<br />
In a post [http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/ JOSEPH MANGANO NEVER STOPS, AND HE NEVER GETS IT RIGHT] on the "Nuclear Power Yes Please blog" on 29 Aug 2012, "LANTZELOT" writes:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* '''Mangano claims that the total number of deaths in Japan rose with 4.8% during 2011, compared with the "normal" increase of 1.5%.''' There is no "normal" increase of 1.5%, though for the last 20 years the average increase in the number of deaths (due to an ageing population and decreasing birth rate) has been about 2%. For individual years the increase varies drastically, being above 4% six times since 1990. Thus the 4.8% increase during 2011 is not very spectacular.<br />
<br />
* '''Out of the about 1.2 million Japanese that die every year the 4.8% increase means an excess of 57,900 deaths compared with 2010. When subtracting the victims of the tsunami and earthquake there is still an excess of 38,700 deaths with no obvious cause.''' Mangano fails to mention that also in 2010 there was an "excess" of more than 55,000 deaths, compared with the year before. Yes, that is 55,000 excess deaths without a tsunami, without the release of radioactivity, and without alarmistic claims by Mangano.<br />
<br />
* '''"38,700 deaths with no obvious cause", or "38,700 additional unexplained deaths" is repeated, implying that maybe Fukushima did it.''' The majority of the deaths are not unexplained, they are classified into about 130 different categories, carefully filed by the MHLW. There is however a category called "Other causes" which include those deaths that can not be classified according to the other categories. For 2011 this category has about 5,000 deaths, which may still sound alarming. It should be noted that this is only 150 more than for 2010, and the variation between different years may be much larger than that. Furthermore, those deaths from "other causes" are not mysterious or due to some death ray directly from Fukushima, they just do not fit into any of the other 130 categories.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{refs}}<br />
<br />
=== William T. Vollmann - No Immediate Danger ===<br />
<br />
[http://progressandperil.com/2018/04/09/the-ideology-of-fear-william-t-vollman-and-nuclear-power/ The Ideology of Fear: William T. Vollmann and Nuclear Power] Will Boisvert; Progress and Peril; 9 Apr 2018<br />
: Review of No Immediate Danger: Volume One of Carbon Ideologies<br />
<br />
=== Debunking ===<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/ Are Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Really Over?] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 2 Sep 2013<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/ More Fukushima Scaremongering Debunked] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 28 Oct 2013<br />
: "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima"<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/11/25/dire-warnings-and-melting-starfish-fukushima-fear/ Dire Warnings and Melting Starfish: Fukushima Fearmongering, Volume 3] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 25 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: The ocean is broken. <br />
* CLAIM: David Suzuki's Dire Warning. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima is as bad as 14,000 Hiroshima bombs.<br />
* CLAIM: The scary radiation map. <br />
* CLAIM: Cancer rates are spiking in Fukushima's children. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima radiation is the cause of an epidemic of melting sea stars. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/20/fukushima-fear-vol-4/ Fukushima Fear, Vol. 4: More Nonsense Than You Can Shake a Giant Squid At] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 20 Jan 2014<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: OMG! A giant squid beached itself in Santa Monica! Fukushima! <br />
* CLAIM: Two underground nuclear explosions rocked the Fukushima site on New Year's Eve, forcing Russia's Ministry of Defense to go on high alert — and causing TEPCO to quietly admit that Reactor 3 was melting down. GAME OVER!!! <br />
* CLAIM: Radioactive steam was seen pouring off Reactor 3, meaning it's in the middle of a meltdown. <br />
* CLAIM: A dude with a Geiger counter went to a California beach and found radiation levels off the charts! Evacuate the west coast at once!<br />
* CLAIM: 98% of the Pacific sea floor is covered in dead creatures nuked by Fukushima.<br />
* CLAIM: A mass die-off of sardines in the Pacific is because of Fukushima radiation. <br />
* CLAIM: California scientists are going to start monitoring kelp forests, because they know Fukushima radiation is killing us all!<br />
* CLAIM: The US government bought 14 million potassium iodide doses to protect the wealthy elite from radiation! APOCALYPSE AHOY!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.earthtouchnews.com/oceans/oceans/heres-your-go-to-source-for-debunking-all-the-fukushima-fables Here's your go-to source for debunking all the Fukushima fables] Sarah Keartes; Earth Touch News; 25 Feb 2016<br />
{{Quote|From "mutant" eels to fish "tumours", viral stories linking the Fukushima nuclear disaster to seemingly strange marine events are probably crowding your news feed. And each time one pops up, radiation-related panic spirals ensue.}}<br />
<br />
[https://m.facebook.com/1561335957440623/photos/a.1561349920772560.1073741827.1561335957440623/1681156132125271/?type=3&source=54 what you get searching Google images for Fukushima] Refutations to Anti-Nuclear Memes; facebook<br />
<br />
== Onagawa ==<br />
[http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 Onagawa: The Japanese nuclear power plant that didn’t melt down on 3/11]<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160403020718/http://energyforhumanity.org/nuclear/nuclear-is-normal-when-your-local-reactor-is-the-safest-place-in-the-world/ Nuclear is Normal: When Your Local Reactor is the Safest Place in the World] Energy For Humanity (via Internet Archive Wayback Machine); 6 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
1993. The second boiling water reactor at the Tōhoku Electric Co’s Onagawa nuclear station is completed after a three and a half year build, costing $2.64 billion in today’s US dollars. The site is already elevated and fortified beyond historical tsunami indications, the legacy of a corporate safety culture instilled by vice president Yanosuke Hirai. This diligence pervaded and persisted through the company, driving safety focus and disaster preparedness. A further unit is later constructed beside Onagawa-2. The plant operates well above average Japanese availability factor.<br />
<br />
The response of Onagawa to the natural disasters in 2011 has been detailed in the literature by senior personnel, as well as by an independent journalist. All three reactors shut down automatically, as designed, when the quake struck. Workers were quick to organise and get to work ensuring the plant’s safety. Backup power sytems including diesel generators and offsite power lines were safe from the waves and continued to cool the decay heat within the reactor cores. Tsunami damage was limited to a non-safety switchgear fire and auxiliary building flooding.<br />
<br />
The safety and electricity at the plant in the midst of unprecedented devastation drew local survivors. Hundreds of people were housed in Onagawa’s gymnasium for three months and provided with warmth and supplies.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Cleanup ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ Clearing the Radioactive Rubble Heap That Was Fukushima Daiichi, 7 Years On] Tim Hornyak; Scientific American; 9 Mar 2018<br />
: The water is tainted, the wreckage is dangerous, and disposing of it will be a prolonged, complex and costly process</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Fukushima&diff=5488Fukushima2022-07-19T12:14:33Z<p>Sisussman: /* Consequences of evacuation */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 1]]<br />
[[Category: Nuclear energy]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident Fukushima nuclear accident] J.M.K.C. Donev et al.; University of Calgary Energy Education; 3 Sep 2015<br />
<br />
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a19871/fukushima-five-years-later/ Five Years Later, Cutting Through the Fukushima Myths] Andrew Karam; Popular Mechanics; 11 Mar 2016<br />
:Radiation expert Andrew Karam, who covered the disaster for Popular Mechanics in 2011 and later traveled to study the site, explains everything you need to know about Fukushima's legacy and danger five years later.<br />
<br />
: March 11, 2011 was a day of unimaginable tragedy in northern Japan, a tragedy exacerbated by the reactor meltdowns and release of contamination. But the nuclear part of this horrible day was, if the longest-lasting, certainly the least lethal event. Yet it's the part that still engenders so much fear. With the fifth anniversary of the Fukushima accident upon us this month, let's take a look at where things stand today with recovering from this calamity, and what might be happening next.<br />
<br />
[https://mothersfornuclear.org/our-thoughts/2018/3/11/fukushima-perspectivefromareactoroperatoron3/11-7yearslater Fukushima: Perspective from a Reactor Operator on 3/11 Seven Years Later] Heather; Mothers for Nuclear; 10 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
[https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/was-fallout-from-fukushima-exaggerated What was the fallout from Fukushima?] Fred Pearce; The Observer; 3 Jun 2018<br />
: Shunichi Yamashita knows a lot of about the health effects of radiation. But he is a pariah in his home country of Japan, because he insists on telling those evacuated after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident that the hazards are much less than they suppose. Could he be right?<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-glass-beads-may-tell-the-terrible-tale-of-how-the-fukushima-meltdown-unfolded Radioactive Glass Beads May Tell the Terrible Tale of How the Fukushima Meltdown Unfolded] Andrea Thompson; Scientific American; 11 Mar 2019<br />
: The microscopic particles unleashed by the plant’s explosions are also a potential environmental and health concern<br />
<br />
== Radioactivity and radiation effects ==<br />
[http://new.atmc.jp/ Radioactivity monitoring around Fukushima]<br />
: graphics and tables from atmc.jp<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
=== Politicisation and political effects ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html#disqus_thread The world has forgotten the real victims of Fukushima] Michael Hanlon; Daily Telegraph; 21 Feb 2012<br />
: A natural disaster that cost the lives of thousands of people was ignored in favour of a nuclear 'disaster’ that never was, argues Michael Hanlon.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17287740 Global fallout: Did Fukushima scupper nuclear power?] Richard Black, Environment correspondent; BBC News; <br />
10 Mar 2012<br />
<br />
== Health effects ==<br />
=== WHO ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/health-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident Health consequences of Fukushima nuclear accident] WHO news Room; 10 March 2016 <br />
{{Quote|<br />
* What happened?<br />
* What were the main radionuclides to which people were exposed?<br />
* What levels of radiation have people been exposed to?<br />
* What were the main public health consequences of the disaster?<br />
* What are the health implications of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (FDNPS) nuclear accident?<br />
* Is there a risk of radiation-induced thyroid cancer among children of Fukushima prefecture?<br />
* Is there any risk from radioactive food contamination in Japan today?<br />
* What are the public health lessons learned from the response to Fukushima?<br />
* What was WHO response?<br />
* What is being done to mitigate the public health impact of the Fukushima accident?<br />
}}<br />
: + links to other documents<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/ Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks] World Health Organisation; 28 Feb 2013<br />
{{Quote|A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On] World Health Organisation<br />
<br />
=== UNSCEAR ===<br />
[https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html "The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power station accident / UNSCEAR's assessments of levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great East-Japan earthquake and tsunami"] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation <br />
<br />
{{qq|On 11 March 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered major damage from the failure of equipment after the magnitude 9.0 great east-Japan earthquake and subsequent tsunami. It was the largest civilian nuclear accident since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Radioactive material was released from the damaged plant and tens of thousands of people were evacuated.<br />
<br />
In May 2011, the Committee embarked upon a two-year assessment of the levels and effects of radiation exposure from the accident. It reported its findings to the General Assembly in October 2013 ( A/68/46), and a detailed publication titled 'Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami' with the supporting scientific data and evaluation was issued online on 2 April 2014 [ English] [ Japanese].<br />
<br />
The main focus of the UNSCEAR 2013 Report was on assessing the exposure to radiation of various groups of the population, and the implied effects in terms of radiation-induced risks for human health and the environment. The population groups considered included residents of the Fukushima Prefecture and other prefectures in Japan; and workers, contractors and others who were engaged in the emergency work at or around the accident site. The environmental assessment addressed marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Geraldine Thomas ===<br />
[http://www.clinicaloncologyonline.net/issue/S0936-6555(16)X0003-9 Fukushima - Five Years On] Clinical Oncology; Edited by Gerry Thomas; Apr 2016<br />
: edition of journal devoted to studies of Fukushima<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761136 Is Fukushima's exclusion zone doing more harm than radiation?] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes; BBC; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: includes [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761141 interview with Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College]<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
: There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster dispute about the neutrality of this article]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601011/the-effects-of-fukushima-linger-after-five-years-but-not-from-radiation/ The Effects of Fukushima Linger After Five Years - But Not From Radiation] Richard Martin; MIT Technology Review; 10 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Norwegian study ===<br />
[http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-6605.pdf Global transport of Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to Asia, North America and Europe. Estimated doses and expected health effects] Nikolaos Evangeliou, Andreas Stohl, Yves Balkanski; Geophysical Research Abstracts; 2017<br />
{{qq|An attempt to assess exposure of the population and the environment showed that the effective dose from gamma irradiation during the first 3 months was estimated between 1−5 mSv in Fukushima and the neighbouring prefectures. In the rest of Japan, the respective doses were found to be less than 0.5 mSv, whereas in the rest of the world it was less than 0.1 mSv. Such doses are equivalent with the obtained dose from a simple X-ray; for the highly contaminated regions, they are close to the dose limit for exposure due to radon inhalation (10 mSv). The calculated dose rates from radiocesium exposure on reference organisms ranged from 0.03 to 0.18 µGy h−1, which are 2 orders of magnitude below the screening dose limit (10 µGy h−1) that could result in obvious effects on the population. However, monitoring data have shown that much higher dose rates were committed to organisms raising ecological risk for small mammals and reptiles in terms of cytogenetic damage and reproduction.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencealert.com/fukushima-s-meltdown-gave-you-about-100-bananas-worth-of-radiation Fukushima's Meltdown Gave Every Human on Earth 1,000 Bananas' Worth of Radiation] MIKE MCRAE; Science Alert; 8 MAY 2017<br />
{{qq|Assuming you've been living on Earth since the nuclear reactor at Fukushima in Japan was struck by a tsunami in March 2011, there's a good chance you copped about 1,000 bananas' worth of radiation over the past six years as a result of the meltdown.<br />
<br />
That's what the Norwegian Institute for Air Research calculated, based on how far two radioactive isotopes of caesium have spread, putting the dosage for most people outside Japan at less than 0.1 millisievert – also equivalent to receiving one X-ray.<br />
<br />
Of course, if you happened to be a little closer to the event – say, in Japan – the average dose over the few years that followed was closer to 0.5 millisieverts, which isn't even close to what you'd get if you underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan in hospital.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Thyroid cancer and effects of screening ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/pdf/thy.2017.0283.pdf Lessons from Fukushima: Latest Findings of Thyroid Cancer After the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident] Shunichi Yamashita, Shinichi Suzuki, Satoru Suzuki, Hiroki Shimura, Vladimir Saenko<br />
{{qq|The accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused a biased risk perception, which is now a pressing social problem similar to that observed after Chernobyl. Consequently, the association between radiation and the thyroid has reminded people of the reiteration of Chernobyl and brought about a simplistic way of assuming that the high incidence of thyroid cancers has been caused by radiation exposure. This, in turn, has further augmented excessive anxiety, worries, and wrong interpretations of the results of elaborate large-scale ultrasound thyroid screening, having a psychological and mental impact on those exposed to radiation.}}<br />
<br />
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full Epidemic of fear] Dennis Normile; Science; 4 Mar 2016 ''(paywalled)''<br />
<br />
[https://www.wired.com/2016/03/cancer-rates-spiked-fukushima-dont-blame-radiation/ CANCER RATES SPIKED AFTER FUKUSHIMA. BUT DON'T BLAME RADIATION] Sarah Fallon; Wired; 9 Mar 2016<br />
{{qq|Now, some people actually might have had to worry about radioactive iodine being sucked up into their thyroids: the families (especially kids) living near the Fukushima Daiichi plant. And indeed, kids in the region were screened for thyroid cancer in the years following the disaster. A piece in Science last week walks through the history of this screening, and the lessons it offers are instructive—for any human being who ever requires medical care.<br />
<br />
On its face, as Dennis Normile describes, the initial finding from screenings in Japan was super alarming. Almost half (half!) of those screened had nodules or cysts (which can potentially be or become cancerous) on their thyroids.<br />
<br />
Nuts, right? And a Japanese epidemiologist named Toshihide Tsuda published a paper in 2015 saying that the rate of thyroid cancer in those Fukushima kids was more than 600 per million—way higher than the 1 to 3 cases per million kids that you would expect. But! As Normile writes, that comparison wasn’t quite fair. The Fukushima survey used advanced ultrasound devices that can detect tiny growths, while the older data came from plain old clinical exams. Oops. You have an apples to oranges thing going on there, in terms of your diagnostic instruments.<br />
<br />
Indeed, when other scientists screened kids elsewhere in Japan using the fancy ultrasound devices, rates of cancer were anywhere from 300 to 1,300 per million. What the ultrasound devices find, then, is a whole lot of turtles.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Thyroid_screening_program Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster -- Thyroid screening program] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
== Consequences of evacuation - Philip Thomas et al study ==<br />
[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/14/national/fukushima-evacuations-were-not-worth-the-money-study-says/ Fukushima evacuations were not worth the money, study says] WILLIAM HOLLINGWORTH; The Japan Times; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
{{qq|<br />
The costs of evacuating residents from near the Fukushima No. 1 plant and the dislocation the people experienced were greater than their expected gain in longevity, a British study has found.<br />
<br />
The researchers found that at best evacuees could expect to live eight months longer, but that some might gain only one extra day of life. They said this does not warrant ripping people from their homes and communities.<br />
<br />
The team of experts from four British universities developed a series of tests to examine the relocations after the Fukushima crisis and earlier Chernobyl disaster in 1986.<br />
<br />
After a three-year study, the academics have concluded that Japan “overreacted” by relocating 160,000 residents of Fukushima Prefecture, even though radioactive material fell on more than 30,000 sq. km of territory.<br />
<br />
“We judged that no one should have been relocated in Fukushima, and it could be argued this was a knee-jerk reaction,” said Philip Thomas, a professor of risk management at Bristol University. “It did more harm than good. An awful lot of disruption has been caused However, this is with hindsight and we are not blaming the authorities.”<br />
<br />
The team used a wide range of economic and actuarial data, as well as information from the United Nations and the Japanese government.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Stress and mental health effects ===<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk]<br />
(NY Times; 21 Sep 2015)<br />
{{Quote|<br />
No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.<br />
<br />
But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/20/national/post-quake-illnesses-kill-more-in-fukushima-than-2011-disaster Fukushima stress deaths top 3/11 toll] Japan Times; 20 Feb 2014<br />
{{Quote|FUKUSHIMA – Stress and other illnesses related to the 2011 quake and tsunami had killed 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture as of Wednesday, outnumbering the 1,607 whose deaths were directly tied to disaster-caused injuries, according to data compiled by the prefecture and local police.<br />
<br />
A prefectural official said many people “have undergone drastic changes in their lives and are still unable to map out their future plans, such as homecoming, causing increased stress on them.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html Fukushima and the Art of Knowing] Clare Leppold; Huffington Post; 18 Jun 2016<br />
{{Quote|When trying to evacuate, some were turned away from the homes of their families because radiation was misunderstood as contagious. I am told about the parents of young men, opposing their choice to marry a woman from Fukushima because it is assumed that she will not be able to bear healthy children. Some children themselves believe they will never be able to have healthy offspring in the future, because of what they have heard.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/904443906340889?comment_id=904574889661124&reply_comment_id=905119912939955&notif_t=share_reply People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes] Thoughtscapism; Facebook; 11 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|This is madness! People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes - the risk from radiation is way below what nuclear plant staff are safely allowed to be exposed to (20 mSv/year). Some of my Finnish countrymen live with the natural radiation of 7 milliSieverts. There's a brazil beach famed for it's 'healing sands', with radiation levels of 175 mSv per year. Spots of 12 mSv/year in the Fukushima area are just *fine*.<br />
<br />
"The radiation has not been the disaster. It's our response to the radiation, our fear that we've projected on to others, to say this is really dangerous. It isn't really dangerous and there are plenty of places in the world where you would live with background radiation of at least this level."<br />
<br />
" If I were to stand outside here for 12 hours a day, every day of the year, I would receive an annual extra dose of radiation of around 13 millisieverts." <br />
<br />
"...[this is] more than ten times above what the Japanese government has declared "safe" for people to return."<br />
<br />
"There are places in Cornwall in the UK where background radiation levels reach 8 millisieverts a year.<br />
<br />
The world's highest background radiation rate is found in the city of Ramsar in Iran, which has the astonishing rate of 250 millisieverts a year."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Consequences of nuclear shutdown ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-down-japans-nuclear-plants-after-fukushima-was-a-bad-idea/ Shutting Down All Of Japan’s Nuclear Plants After Fukushima Was A Bad Idea] James Conca; Forbes; 31 Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
By now, more Japanese have died from the closing of Japan's nuclear power plants following the 2011 Tohoku quake than from the tsunami and the earthquake combined, which was about 20,000 people.<br />
<br />
Of course, no one has died from any radiation released from the reactor, and no one ever will. There just wasn’t enough dose to anyone.<br />
<br />
These conclusions are now echoed across the scientific and medical communities. The [http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf latest study], from Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida and Marcella Veronesi, discusses how after [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident], when all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, there was a significant increase in electricity prices and in public mortality.<br />
<br />
The increase in price led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. An increase in mortality also occurred from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, which causes upper respiratory effects. The estimate of these combined mortalities outnumbers the mortality from the tsunami and earthquake themselves, suggesting that the knee-jerk decision to cease nuclear production was a very bad idea.<br />
<br />
The immediate urge to shut down all Japanese nuclear reactors after the event was understandable, but Japan only had 15 reactors out of 54 that were at risk of tsunamis. Shutting down these reactors was reasonable in order to determine how to make them more resistant to this particular threat.<br />
<br />
The other reactors not at risk should have continued operating during the safety review following the accident, during formation of the new nuclear regulatory authority, and during the development and implementation of the new safety measures.<br />
<br />
...<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident] Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida, Marcella Veronesi; IZA Institute of Labor Economics; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|This paper provides a large scale, empirical evaluation of unintended effects from invoking the precautionary principle after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. After the accident, all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, causing an exogenous increase in electricity prices. This increase led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increase in mortality from higher electricity prices outnumbers the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting the decision to cease nuclear production has contributed to more deaths than the accident itself.}}<br />
<br />
== Wildlife ==<br />
<br />
"Study shows animal life thriving around Fukushima" by Vicky L. Sutton-Jackson, 6 Jan 2020, [https://news.uga.edu/animal-life-thriving-around-fukushima/ University of Georgia]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Nearly a decade after the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan, researchers from the University of Georgia have found that wildlife populations are abundant in areas void of human life.<br />
<br />
The camera study, published in the Journal of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, reports that over 267,000 wildlife photos recorded more than 20 species, including wild boar, Japanese hare, macaques, pheasant, fox and the raccoon dog—a relative of the fox—in various areas of the landscape.<br />
<br />
UGA wildlife biologist James Beasley said speculation and questions have come from both the scientific community and the general public about the status of wildlife years after a nuclear accident like those in Chernobyl and Fukushima.<br />
<br />
This recent study, in addition to the team’s research in Chernobyl, provides answers to the questions.<br />
<br />
“Our results represent the first evidence that numerous species of wildlife are now abundant throughout the Fukushima Evacuation Zone, despite the presence of radiological contamination,” said Beasley, associate professor at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources.<br />
<br />
Species that are often in conflict with humans, particularly wild boar, were predominantly captured on camera in human-evacuated areas or zones, according to Beasley.<br />
<br />
“This suggests these species have increased in abundance following the evacuation of people.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
"Rewilding of Fukushima's human evacuation zone" by Phillip C Lyons, Kei Okuda, Matthew T Hamilton, Thomas G Hinton, James C Beasley; 6 Jan 2020 [https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2149 esa journals]<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
There is substantial interest in understanding the ecological impacts of the nuclear accidents at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants. However, population‐level data for large mammals have been limited, and there remains much speculation regarding the status of wildlife species in these areas. Using a network of remote cameras placed along a gradient of radiological contamination and human presence, we collected data on population‐level impacts to wildlife (that is, abundance and occupancy patterns) following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. We found no evidence of population‐level impacts in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals or gallinaceous birds, and show several species were most abundant in human‐evacuated areas, despite the presence of radiological contamination. These data provide unique evidence of the natural rewilding of the Fukushima landscape following human abandonment, and suggest that if any effects of radiological exposure in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals in the Fukushima Exclusion Zone exist, they occur at individual or molecular scales, and do not appear to manifest in population‐level responses.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Marine effects ==<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2012/06/detectable-but-not-hazardous-radioactive-marine-life-of-fukushima/ Detectable but not hazardous: radioactive marine life of Fukushima] Miriam Goldstein; Deep Sea News; 1 Jun 2012<br />
<br />
[http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/fukushima-radiation Fukushima Radiation] Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution<br />
{{Quote| Scientists continue to study the effects of radioactive contaminants on the marine environment following the earthquake, tsunamis, and resulting radiation leads from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/ True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster] Dr Martini; Deep Sea News; 28 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
On March 11th, 2011 the Tōhoku earthquake and resulting tsunami wreaked havoc on Japan. It also resulted in the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl when the tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere and ocean, contaminating groundwater, soil and seawater which effectively closed local Japanese fisheries.<br />
<br />
Rather unfortunately, it has also led to some wild speculation on the widespread dangers of Fukushima radiation on the internet. <br />
}}<br />
: ''contains Simpsons guide to radiation and debunks of some scare stories''<br />
<br />
== Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
[http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/08/unimaginable-levels-radiation-fukushima-pacific-ocean-leaks Radiation at Japan's Fukushima Reactor Is Now at 'Unimaginable' Levels] Fox News; 8 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
[[file:NOAA tsunami wave height map.jpg | 300px | right | thumb | NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, with key showing mapping of colours to wave height'']]<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170223024958/http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/02a91dbeabeb6f9cebb3de75e65dd275 Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It's Going To Get Worse)] zerohedge.com; 21 Feb 2017 ''(via Internet Archive)''<br />
{{Quote|<br />
''Story using the NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, which hasn't even cropped out the legend showing height mapping to colours''<br />
<br />
''Floats the conspiracy theory that General Electric has managed to suppress reporting on Fukushima for last 5 years''<br />
<br />
''Claims that'' "Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs" ''and that'' "the US and Canadian governments have banned their citizens from talking about Fukushima so “people don’t panic.”" ''(citing a [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468 2012 BBC News report] on the Harper government's media protocol)''<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp Oh, Fukushima] Snopes<br />
{{Quote|A chart purportedly showing radioactive water seeping into the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear plant actually depicts something else.}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/whats-really-going-on-at-fukushima/ What’s Really Going on at Fukushima?] ROBERT HUNZIKER; Counterpunch; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: ''Quotes Helen Caldicott. Also includes claims about Chernobyl, including 1 million deaths.''<br />
<br />
[http://www.realfarmacy.com/whales-die-pacific-ocean-scientists-suspect-fukushima/ Whales Continue to Die Off in Pacific Ocean: Scientists Suspect Fukushima Radiation at Fault] RealFarmacy<br />
<br />
=== USS Ronald Reagan ===<br />
[https://www.thenation.com/article/seven-years-on-sailors-exposed-to-fukushima-radiation-seek-their-day-in-court/ 7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court] Gregg Levine; The Nation; 9 Mar 2018<br />
{{Quote|Special investigation: US military personnel are sick and dying, and want the nuclear plant’s designers and owners to take responsibility.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/06/23/court-sailors-can-sue-in-us-over-japanese-nuclear-disaster/ Court: Sailors can sue in US over Japanese nuclear disaster] The Associated Press; Navy Times; 22 June 2017<br />
{{Quote|SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court says members of the U.S. Navy can pursue their lawsuit in a U.S. court alleging radiation exposure from Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the sailors for now don't have to make their legal claims in Japan. Their lawsuit accuses Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the Japanese government of conspiring to keep secret the extent of the radiation leak following a 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed thousands of people. The plaintiffs arrived off the coast of Fukushima aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other vessels to provide humanitarian aid a day after the quake. }}<br />
<br />
[https://www.health.mil/Reference-Center/Reports/2014/06/19/Radiation-Exposure-Report Letter from US DoD re Radiation Exposure on USS Ronald Regan]<br />
{{Quote|Some sailors who developed cancer and other serious health conditions allege radiation exposures while serving on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi may be the cause. There is no objective evidence that the sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi experienced radiation exposures that would result in an increase in the expected number of radiogenic diseases over time. The estimated radiation doses for all individuals in the Operation Tomodachi registry, including sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN, were very small and well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions. A detailed explanation of the data collection, methodologies, analyses, and conclusions are included in the enclosed report.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-fukushima-radiation-class-action Judge Tosses Fukushima Radiation Class Action] Bianca Bruno; Courthouse News Service; 4 Mar 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Hundreds of American sailors who filed two class actions claiming to have suffered physical abnormalities, cancer and death stemming from exposure to radiation while on a humanitarian mission to Fukushima, Japan in 2011 were dealt a blow Monday when their cases were dismissed, paving the way for their claims to be brought in Japan.<br />
<br />
U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino found in a “close call” in two separate orders, class actions brought against Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, and General Electric, should be dismissed without prejudice so the service members’ claims could be brought in Japan if they choose to revive them.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== [[Chris Busby]] ===<br />
Busby has written for the Russian state propaganda outlet RT.com: [https://www.rt.com/op-edge/335362-fukushima-nuclear-japan-bbc/ Is Fukushima's nuclear nightmare over? Don’t count on it] Chris Busby; RT; 12 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
and for [[The Ecologist]]: <br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2987398/no_matter_what_bbc_says_fukushima_disaster_is_killing_people.html No matter what BBC says: Fukushima disaster is killing people] Chris Busby; The Ecologist; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Sherman & Mangano ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION?] Joseph J. Mangano, Janette D. Sherman; International Journal of Health Services; 2012<br />
{{Quote|The multiple nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima plants beginning on March 11, 2011, are releasing large amounts of airborne radioactivity that has spread throughout Japan and to other nations; thus, studies of contamination and health hazards are merited. In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns. Some samples of radioactivity in precipitation, air, water, and milk, taken by the U.S. government, showed levels hundreds of times above normal; however, the small number of samples prohibits any credible analysis of temporal trends and spatial comparisons. U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80 percent, compared with a previous 8.37 percent decrease. Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected. These preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986, which approximated final figures.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Rebuttals of Sherman & Mangano ====<br />
<br />
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study] Michael Moyer; Scientific American; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
In June [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ I wrote about] a claim that babies in the U.S. were dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation. A close look at the accusation revealed that the data used by the authors to make the argument showed no such thing. "That data is publicly available," I wrote, "and a check reveals that [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths]." The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.<br />
<br />
Now the authors have published a revised study ([http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf PDF]) in the [http://www.baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services]. A press release published to herald the article warns, "[http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease111219FukushimaReactorFallout.html 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Fallout]." This is an alarming accusation. Let's see how the authors defend it.<br />
<br />
First, the authors assert: "In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns." They provide no evidence for this assertion, no citation to back up their facts. The authors then note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitored radioactivity in milk, water and air in the weeks and months following the disaster. Ah, here must be the data, the careful reader hopes. Alas, "the number of samples for which the EPA was able to detect measurable concentrations of radioactivity is relatively few," the authors write. They then conclude, with evident disappointment, that "clearly, the 2011 EPA reports cannot be used with confidence for any comprehensive assessment of temporal trends and spatial patterns of U.S. environmental radiation levels originating in Japan." In other words, the EPA didn't find evidence for the plume that our entire argument depends on, so "clearly" we can't trust the agency's data.<br />
<br />
Yet even if there isn't evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: "U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks....Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths." In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.<br />
<br />
To unpack a little more, the authors take mortality figures from the [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports]. I talk a little about these reports in my [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ original piece]. Suffice it to say that they are an incomplete record of deaths in the U.S. (as the authors acknowledge). The authors draw a hard line at the week of March 20, 2011, the 12th week of the year. They sum up all deaths around the country for both the 14 weeks preceding and the 14 weeks following March 20, 2011. They do the same for 2010. They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010. The 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2011 (presumably before the radiation plume arrived and spread across the land) include only 2.34 percent more dead people than the 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2010. Since the CDC only reports on about 23.5 percent of all deaths, the authors claim, they helpfully multiply the supposed "excess" by 1/0.235 to arrive at the final number of 13,893 deaths.<br />
<br />
No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are [http://www.radiation.org/ anti-nuclear activists] unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the "excess" deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.<br />
<br />
The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-health-risks-scrutin radiation from Fukushima is dangerous], and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coming-clean-about-nuclear-power serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play] in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.<br />
<br />
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.<br />
<br />
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)<br />
<br />
Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/2011/12/20/fukushima-alarmist-claim-obscure-medical-journal-proceed-caution Fukushima: Alarmist Claim? Obscure Medical Journal? Proceed With Caution] Barbara Feder Ostrov; University of Southern California Center for Health Journalism blog; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''UPDATE: Click [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n here] for a response from International Journal of Health Services Editor-in-Chief Vicente Navarro.'''<br />
<br />
The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy press release] trumpeted a startling claim: researchers had linked radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster to 14,000 deaths in the United States, with infants hardest hit.<br />
<br />
"This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima," the press release bragged in announcing the study's publication today. The press release, which compared the disaster's impact to Chernobyl, appeared via PR Newswire on mainstream news sites, including the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy Sacramento Bee] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://news.yahoo.com/medical-journal-article-14-000-u-deaths-tied-160111170.html Yahoo! News].<br />
<br />
Casual readers who didn't realize this was only a press release could be forgiven for thinking this was a spit-out-your-coffee story. But with a little online research and guidance from veteran health journalists [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer], I quickly learned that there's a lot less to [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,6,13;journal,1,165;browsepublicationsresults,7,24; this study] and to the medical journal that published it. Read on for their advice on what journalists can learn from this episode.<br />
<br />
Normally, reporters are supposed to feel better about research that's been peer-reviewed before publication in a scientific journal. But the claims of the press release were just so outlandish, warning bells went off.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, the authors, Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, published a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/is-the-increase-in-baby-deaths-in-the-us-a-result-of-fukushima-fallout/ version of this study] in the political newsletter Counterpunch, where it was quickly criticized. The critics charged that the authors [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2011/06/21/counterpunch-verifies-infant-mortality-fraud-but-seems-to-create-one-themselves/ had cherry-picked federal data on infant deaths] so they would spike around the time of the Fukushima disaster. Passions over nuclear safety further muddied the debate: both researchers and some critics had activist baggage, with the researchers characterized as anti-nuke and the critics as pro-nuke.<br />
<br />
As Scientific American's Michael Moyer [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ writes]: "The authors appeared to start from a conclusion-babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation-and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims."<br />
<br />
So how did such a seemingly flawed study wind up in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
I researched the journal, the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services], and its editor, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1041/Navarro/Vicente Vicente Navarro]. Navarro, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's prestigious school of public health, looked legit, but the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0020-7314_International_Journal_of_Health_Services journal's "impact factor"] (a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ measure of a research journal's credibility and influence]) was less impressive. (I emailed and called Navarro for comment; I'll [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n update this post] if I hear back from him.)<br />
<br />
I asked [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky], executive editor of Reuters Health and co-founder of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Retraction Watch] blog, and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.healthnewsreview.org/ Health News Review] founder [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer]: how can journalists better evaluate when to cover (and more importantly, when not to cover) the medical research stories that cross their desks?<br />
<br />
Their consensus: just because a study's peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's credible. And evaluating a journal's impact factor can be helpful, but it's not sufficient.<br />
<br />
Here's what Oransky had to say:<br />
<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
I do use impact factor to judge journals, while accepting that it's an imperfect measure that is used in all sorts of inappropriate ways (and, for the sake of full disclosure, is a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ Thomson Scientific product], as in Thomson Reuters). I find it helpful to rank journals within a particular specialty. It's not the only metric I use to figure out what to cover, but if I'm looking at a field with dozens or even more than 100 journals, it's a good first-pass filter. There's competition to publish in journals, which means high-impact journals have much lower acceptance rates. And if citations are any measure at all of whether journals are read, then they're obviously read more, too.<br />
<br />
I looked up the journal in question, and it's actually ranked 45th out of 58 in the Health Policy and Services category (in the social sciences rankings) and 59th out of 72 in the Health Care Sciences & Services category (in the science rankings).<br />
<br />
As to how this could get published in a peer-reviewed journal, well, not all peer review is created equal. Higher-ranked journals tend to have more thorough peer review. (They also, perhaps not surprisingly, have [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://bjoern.brembs.net/comment-n811.html higher rates of retractions]. Whether that's because people push the envelope to publish in them, or there are more eyeballs on them, or there's some other reason, is unclear. But there's no evidence that it's because their peer review is less thorough.)<br />
<br />
Finally, I'd refer readers to this [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html great primer on peer review] by Maggie Koerth-Baker.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Gary Schwitzer also provided these helpful tips for journalists:<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
1. Brush up on the writings of [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ John Ioannidis], who has written a great deal in recent years about the flaws in published research.<br />
<br />
2. Journalists who live on a steady diet of journal articles almost by definition promote a rose-colored view of progress in research if they don't grasp and convey the publication bias in many journals for positive findings. Negative or null findings may not be viewed as sexy enough. Or they may be squelched prior to submission. While perhaps not a factor in this one case, it nonetheless drives home the point to journalists about the need to critically evaluate studies.<br />
<br />
3. In this case, a journalist would be well-served by a friendly local biostatistician's review.<br />
<br />
4. It is always more helpful to focus on the quality of the study rather than the impact factor of the journal or the reputation of the researcher (for reasons Ivan articulated). However, these are legitimate questions to ask any published researcher: "Why did you choose to submit your work to that journal? Did you submit it elsewhere and was it rejected? If so, what feedback did you get from the peer reviewers?"<br />
}}<br />
'''Related Posts:'''<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n Fukushima Fallout and Infant Deaths: International Journal of Health Services' Vicente Navarro Responds]<br />
}}<br />
<br />
In a post [http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/ JOSEPH MANGANO NEVER STOPS, AND HE NEVER GETS IT RIGHT] on the "Nuclear Power Yes Please blog" on 29 Aug 2012, "LANTZELOT" writes:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* '''Mangano claims that the total number of deaths in Japan rose with 4.8% during 2011, compared with the "normal" increase of 1.5%.''' There is no "normal" increase of 1.5%, though for the last 20 years the average increase in the number of deaths (due to an ageing population and decreasing birth rate) has been about 2%. For individual years the increase varies drastically, being above 4% six times since 1990. Thus the 4.8% increase during 2011 is not very spectacular.<br />
<br />
* '''Out of the about 1.2 million Japanese that die every year the 4.8% increase means an excess of 57,900 deaths compared with 2010. When subtracting the victims of the tsunami and earthquake there is still an excess of 38,700 deaths with no obvious cause.''' Mangano fails to mention that also in 2010 there was an "excess" of more than 55,000 deaths, compared with the year before. Yes, that is 55,000 excess deaths without a tsunami, without the release of radioactivity, and without alarmistic claims by Mangano.<br />
<br />
* '''"38,700 deaths with no obvious cause", or "38,700 additional unexplained deaths" is repeated, implying that maybe Fukushima did it.''' The majority of the deaths are not unexplained, they are classified into about 130 different categories, carefully filed by the MHLW. There is however a category called "Other causes" which include those deaths that can not be classified according to the other categories. For 2011 this category has about 5,000 deaths, which may still sound alarming. It should be noted that this is only 150 more than for 2010, and the variation between different years may be much larger than that. Furthermore, those deaths from "other causes" are not mysterious or due to some death ray directly from Fukushima, they just do not fit into any of the other 130 categories.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{refs}}<br />
<br />
=== William T. Vollmann - No Immediate Danger ===<br />
<br />
[http://progressandperil.com/2018/04/09/the-ideology-of-fear-william-t-vollman-and-nuclear-power/ The Ideology of Fear: William T. Vollmann and Nuclear Power] Will Boisvert; Progress and Peril; 9 Apr 2018<br />
: Review of No Immediate Danger: Volume One of Carbon Ideologies<br />
<br />
=== Debunking ===<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/ Are Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Really Over?] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 2 Sep 2013<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/ More Fukushima Scaremongering Debunked] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 28 Oct 2013<br />
: "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima"<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/11/25/dire-warnings-and-melting-starfish-fukushima-fear/ Dire Warnings and Melting Starfish: Fukushima Fearmongering, Volume 3] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 25 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: The ocean is broken. <br />
* CLAIM: David Suzuki's Dire Warning. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima is as bad as 14,000 Hiroshima bombs.<br />
* CLAIM: The scary radiation map. <br />
* CLAIM: Cancer rates are spiking in Fukushima's children. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima radiation is the cause of an epidemic of melting sea stars. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/20/fukushima-fear-vol-4/ Fukushima Fear, Vol. 4: More Nonsense Than You Can Shake a Giant Squid At] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 20 Jan 2014<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: OMG! A giant squid beached itself in Santa Monica! Fukushima! <br />
* CLAIM: Two underground nuclear explosions rocked the Fukushima site on New Year's Eve, forcing Russia's Ministry of Defense to go on high alert — and causing TEPCO to quietly admit that Reactor 3 was melting down. GAME OVER!!! <br />
* CLAIM: Radioactive steam was seen pouring off Reactor 3, meaning it's in the middle of a meltdown. <br />
* CLAIM: A dude with a Geiger counter went to a California beach and found radiation levels off the charts! Evacuate the west coast at once!<br />
* CLAIM: 98% of the Pacific sea floor is covered in dead creatures nuked by Fukushima.<br />
* CLAIM: A mass die-off of sardines in the Pacific is because of Fukushima radiation. <br />
* CLAIM: California scientists are going to start monitoring kelp forests, because they know Fukushima radiation is killing us all!<br />
* CLAIM: The US government bought 14 million potassium iodide doses to protect the wealthy elite from radiation! APOCALYPSE AHOY!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.earthtouchnews.com/oceans/oceans/heres-your-go-to-source-for-debunking-all-the-fukushima-fables Here's your go-to source for debunking all the Fukushima fables] Sarah Keartes; Earth Touch News; 25 Feb 2016<br />
{{Quote|From "mutant" eels to fish "tumours", viral stories linking the Fukushima nuclear disaster to seemingly strange marine events are probably crowding your news feed. And each time one pops up, radiation-related panic spirals ensue.}}<br />
<br />
[https://m.facebook.com/1561335957440623/photos/a.1561349920772560.1073741827.1561335957440623/1681156132125271/?type=3&source=54 what you get searching Google images for Fukushima] Refutations to Anti-Nuclear Memes; facebook<br />
<br />
== Onagawa ==<br />
[http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 Onagawa: The Japanese nuclear power plant that didn’t melt down on 3/11]<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160403020718/http://energyforhumanity.org/nuclear/nuclear-is-normal-when-your-local-reactor-is-the-safest-place-in-the-world/ Nuclear is Normal: When Your Local Reactor is the Safest Place in the World] Energy For Humanity (via Internet Archive Wayback Machine); 6 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
1993. The second boiling water reactor at the Tōhoku Electric Co’s Onagawa nuclear station is completed after a three and a half year build, costing $2.64 billion in today’s US dollars. The site is already elevated and fortified beyond historical tsunami indications, the legacy of a corporate safety culture instilled by vice president Yanosuke Hirai. This diligence pervaded and persisted through the company, driving safety focus and disaster preparedness. A further unit is later constructed beside Onagawa-2. The plant operates well above average Japanese availability factor.<br />
<br />
The response of Onagawa to the natural disasters in 2011 has been detailed in the literature by senior personnel, as well as by an independent journalist. All three reactors shut down automatically, as designed, when the quake struck. Workers were quick to organise and get to work ensuring the plant’s safety. Backup power sytems including diesel generators and offsite power lines were safe from the waves and continued to cool the decay heat within the reactor cores. Tsunami damage was limited to a non-safety switchgear fire and auxiliary building flooding.<br />
<br />
The safety and electricity at the plant in the midst of unprecedented devastation drew local survivors. Hundreds of people were housed in Onagawa’s gymnasium for three months and provided with warmth and supplies.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Cleanup ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ Clearing the Radioactive Rubble Heap That Was Fukushima Daiichi, 7 Years On] Tim Hornyak; Scientific American; 9 Mar 2018<br />
: The water is tainted, the wreckage is dangerous, and disposing of it will be a prolonged, complex and costly process</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Fukushima&diff=5487Fukushima2022-07-19T12:13:34Z<p>Sisussman: /* Thyroid cancer and effects of screening */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 1]]<br />
[[Category: Nuclear energy]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident Fukushima nuclear accident] J.M.K.C. Donev et al.; University of Calgary Energy Education; 3 Sep 2015<br />
<br />
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a19871/fukushima-five-years-later/ Five Years Later, Cutting Through the Fukushima Myths] Andrew Karam; Popular Mechanics; 11 Mar 2016<br />
:Radiation expert Andrew Karam, who covered the disaster for Popular Mechanics in 2011 and later traveled to study the site, explains everything you need to know about Fukushima's legacy and danger five years later.<br />
<br />
: March 11, 2011 was a day of unimaginable tragedy in northern Japan, a tragedy exacerbated by the reactor meltdowns and release of contamination. But the nuclear part of this horrible day was, if the longest-lasting, certainly the least lethal event. Yet it's the part that still engenders so much fear. With the fifth anniversary of the Fukushima accident upon us this month, let's take a look at where things stand today with recovering from this calamity, and what might be happening next.<br />
<br />
[https://mothersfornuclear.org/our-thoughts/2018/3/11/fukushima-perspectivefromareactoroperatoron3/11-7yearslater Fukushima: Perspective from a Reactor Operator on 3/11 Seven Years Later] Heather; Mothers for Nuclear; 10 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
[https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/was-fallout-from-fukushima-exaggerated What was the fallout from Fukushima?] Fred Pearce; The Observer; 3 Jun 2018<br />
: Shunichi Yamashita knows a lot of about the health effects of radiation. But he is a pariah in his home country of Japan, because he insists on telling those evacuated after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident that the hazards are much less than they suppose. Could he be right?<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-glass-beads-may-tell-the-terrible-tale-of-how-the-fukushima-meltdown-unfolded Radioactive Glass Beads May Tell the Terrible Tale of How the Fukushima Meltdown Unfolded] Andrea Thompson; Scientific American; 11 Mar 2019<br />
: The microscopic particles unleashed by the plant’s explosions are also a potential environmental and health concern<br />
<br />
== Radioactivity and radiation effects ==<br />
[http://new.atmc.jp/ Radioactivity monitoring around Fukushima]<br />
: graphics and tables from atmc.jp<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
=== Politicisation and political effects ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html#disqus_thread The world has forgotten the real victims of Fukushima] Michael Hanlon; Daily Telegraph; 21 Feb 2012<br />
: A natural disaster that cost the lives of thousands of people was ignored in favour of a nuclear 'disaster’ that never was, argues Michael Hanlon.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17287740 Global fallout: Did Fukushima scupper nuclear power?] Richard Black, Environment correspondent; BBC News; <br />
10 Mar 2012<br />
<br />
== Health effects ==<br />
=== WHO ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/health-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident Health consequences of Fukushima nuclear accident] WHO news Room; 10 March 2016 <br />
{{Quote|<br />
* What happened?<br />
* What were the main radionuclides to which people were exposed?<br />
* What levels of radiation have people been exposed to?<br />
* What were the main public health consequences of the disaster?<br />
* What are the health implications of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (FDNPS) nuclear accident?<br />
* Is there a risk of radiation-induced thyroid cancer among children of Fukushima prefecture?<br />
* Is there any risk from radioactive food contamination in Japan today?<br />
* What are the public health lessons learned from the response to Fukushima?<br />
* What was WHO response?<br />
* What is being done to mitigate the public health impact of the Fukushima accident?<br />
}}<br />
: + links to other documents<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/ Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks] World Health Organisation; 28 Feb 2013<br />
{{Quote|A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On] World Health Organisation<br />
<br />
=== UNSCEAR ===<br />
[https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html "The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power station accident / UNSCEAR's assessments of levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great East-Japan earthquake and tsunami"] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation <br />
<br />
{{qq|On 11 March 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered major damage from the failure of equipment after the magnitude 9.0 great east-Japan earthquake and subsequent tsunami. It was the largest civilian nuclear accident since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Radioactive material was released from the damaged plant and tens of thousands of people were evacuated.<br />
<br />
In May 2011, the Committee embarked upon a two-year assessment of the levels and effects of radiation exposure from the accident. It reported its findings to the General Assembly in October 2013 ( A/68/46), and a detailed publication titled 'Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami' with the supporting scientific data and evaluation was issued online on 2 April 2014 [ English] [ Japanese].<br />
<br />
The main focus of the UNSCEAR 2013 Report was on assessing the exposure to radiation of various groups of the population, and the implied effects in terms of radiation-induced risks for human health and the environment. The population groups considered included residents of the Fukushima Prefecture and other prefectures in Japan; and workers, contractors and others who were engaged in the emergency work at or around the accident site. The environmental assessment addressed marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Geraldine Thomas ===<br />
[http://www.clinicaloncologyonline.net/issue/S0936-6555(16)X0003-9 Fukushima - Five Years On] Clinical Oncology; Edited by Gerry Thomas; Apr 2016<br />
: edition of journal devoted to studies of Fukushima<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761136 Is Fukushima's exclusion zone doing more harm than radiation?] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes; BBC; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: includes [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761141 interview with Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College]<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
: There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster dispute about the neutrality of this article]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601011/the-effects-of-fukushima-linger-after-five-years-but-not-from-radiation/ The Effects of Fukushima Linger After Five Years - But Not From Radiation] Richard Martin; MIT Technology Review; 10 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Norwegian study ===<br />
[http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-6605.pdf Global transport of Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to Asia, North America and Europe. Estimated doses and expected health effects] Nikolaos Evangeliou, Andreas Stohl, Yves Balkanski; Geophysical Research Abstracts; 2017<br />
{{qq|An attempt to assess exposure of the population and the environment showed that the effective dose from gamma irradiation during the first 3 months was estimated between 1−5 mSv in Fukushima and the neighbouring prefectures. In the rest of Japan, the respective doses were found to be less than 0.5 mSv, whereas in the rest of the world it was less than 0.1 mSv. Such doses are equivalent with the obtained dose from a simple X-ray; for the highly contaminated regions, they are close to the dose limit for exposure due to radon inhalation (10 mSv). The calculated dose rates from radiocesium exposure on reference organisms ranged from 0.03 to 0.18 µGy h−1, which are 2 orders of magnitude below the screening dose limit (10 µGy h−1) that could result in obvious effects on the population. However, monitoring data have shown that much higher dose rates were committed to organisms raising ecological risk for small mammals and reptiles in terms of cytogenetic damage and reproduction.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencealert.com/fukushima-s-meltdown-gave-you-about-100-bananas-worth-of-radiation Fukushima's Meltdown Gave Every Human on Earth 1,000 Bananas' Worth of Radiation] MIKE MCRAE; Science Alert; 8 MAY 2017<br />
{{qq|Assuming you've been living on Earth since the nuclear reactor at Fukushima in Japan was struck by a tsunami in March 2011, there's a good chance you copped about 1,000 bananas' worth of radiation over the past six years as a result of the meltdown.<br />
<br />
That's what the Norwegian Institute for Air Research calculated, based on how far two radioactive isotopes of caesium have spread, putting the dosage for most people outside Japan at less than 0.1 millisievert – also equivalent to receiving one X-ray.<br />
<br />
Of course, if you happened to be a little closer to the event – say, in Japan – the average dose over the few years that followed was closer to 0.5 millisieverts, which isn't even close to what you'd get if you underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan in hospital.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Thyroid cancer and effects of screening ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/pdf/thy.2017.0283.pdf Lessons from Fukushima: Latest Findings of Thyroid Cancer After the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident] Shunichi Yamashita, Shinichi Suzuki, Satoru Suzuki, Hiroki Shimura, Vladimir Saenko<br />
{{qq|The accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused a biased risk perception, which is now a pressing social problem similar to that observed after Chernobyl. Consequently, the association between radiation and the thyroid has reminded people of the reiteration of Chernobyl and brought about a simplistic way of assuming that the high incidence of thyroid cancers has been caused by radiation exposure. This, in turn, has further augmented excessive anxiety, worries, and wrong interpretations of the results of elaborate large-scale ultrasound thyroid screening, having a psychological and mental impact on those exposed to radiation.}}<br />
<br />
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full Epidemic of fear] Dennis Normile; Science; 4 Mar 2016 ''(paywalled)''<br />
<br />
[https://www.wired.com/2016/03/cancer-rates-spiked-fukushima-dont-blame-radiation/ CANCER RATES SPIKED AFTER FUKUSHIMA. BUT DON'T BLAME RADIATION] Sarah Fallon; Wired; 9 Mar 2016<br />
{{qq|Now, some people actually might have had to worry about radioactive iodine being sucked up into their thyroids: the families (especially kids) living near the Fukushima Daiichi plant. And indeed, kids in the region were screened for thyroid cancer in the years following the disaster. A piece in Science last week walks through the history of this screening, and the lessons it offers are instructive—for any human being who ever requires medical care.<br />
<br />
On its face, as Dennis Normile describes, the initial finding from screenings in Japan was super alarming. Almost half (half!) of those screened had nodules or cysts (which can potentially be or become cancerous) on their thyroids.<br />
<br />
Nuts, right? And a Japanese epidemiologist named Toshihide Tsuda published a paper in 2015 saying that the rate of thyroid cancer in those Fukushima kids was more than 600 per million—way higher than the 1 to 3 cases per million kids that you would expect. But! As Normile writes, that comparison wasn’t quite fair. The Fukushima survey used advanced ultrasound devices that can detect tiny growths, while the older data came from plain old clinical exams. Oops. You have an apples to oranges thing going on there, in terms of your diagnostic instruments.<br />
<br />
Indeed, when other scientists screened kids elsewhere in Japan using the fancy ultrasound devices, rates of cancer were anywhere from 300 to 1,300 per million. What the ultrasound devices find, then, is a whole lot of turtles.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Thyroid_screening_program Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster -- Thyroid screening program] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
== Consequences of evacuation ==<br />
[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/14/national/fukushima-evacuations-were-not-worth-the-money-study-says/ Fukushima evacuations were not worth the money, study says] WILLIAM HOLLINGWORTH; The Japan Times; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
: The costs of evacuating residents from near the Fukushima No. 1 plant and the dislocation the people experienced were greater than their expected gain in longevity, a British study has found.<br />
<br />
: The researchers found that at best evacuees could expect to live eight months longer, but that some might gain only one extra day of life. They said this does not warrant ripping people from their homes and communities.<br />
<br />
: The team of experts from four British universities developed a series of tests to examine the relocations after the Fukushima crisis and earlier Chernobyl disaster in 1986.<br />
<br />
: After a three-year study, the academics have concluded that Japan “overreacted” by relocating 160,000 residents of Fukushima Prefecture, even though radioactive material fell on more than 30,000 sq. km of territory.<br />
<br />
: “We judged that no one should have been relocated in Fukushima, and it could be argued this was a knee-jerk reaction,” said Philip Thomas, a professor of risk management at Bristol University. “It did more harm than good. An awful lot of disruption has been caused However, this is with hindsight and we are not blaming the authorities.”<br />
<br />
: The team used a wide range of economic and actuarial data, as well as information from the United Nations and the Japanese government.<br />
<br />
=== Stress and mental health effects ===<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk]<br />
(NY Times; 21 Sep 2015)<br />
{{Quote|<br />
No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.<br />
<br />
But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/20/national/post-quake-illnesses-kill-more-in-fukushima-than-2011-disaster Fukushima stress deaths top 3/11 toll] Japan Times; 20 Feb 2014<br />
{{Quote|FUKUSHIMA – Stress and other illnesses related to the 2011 quake and tsunami had killed 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture as of Wednesday, outnumbering the 1,607 whose deaths were directly tied to disaster-caused injuries, according to data compiled by the prefecture and local police.<br />
<br />
A prefectural official said many people “have undergone drastic changes in their lives and are still unable to map out their future plans, such as homecoming, causing increased stress on them.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html Fukushima and the Art of Knowing] Clare Leppold; Huffington Post; 18 Jun 2016<br />
{{Quote|When trying to evacuate, some were turned away from the homes of their families because radiation was misunderstood as contagious. I am told about the parents of young men, opposing their choice to marry a woman from Fukushima because it is assumed that she will not be able to bear healthy children. Some children themselves believe they will never be able to have healthy offspring in the future, because of what they have heard.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/904443906340889?comment_id=904574889661124&reply_comment_id=905119912939955&notif_t=share_reply People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes] Thoughtscapism; Facebook; 11 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|This is madness! People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes - the risk from radiation is way below what nuclear plant staff are safely allowed to be exposed to (20 mSv/year). Some of my Finnish countrymen live with the natural radiation of 7 milliSieverts. There's a brazil beach famed for it's 'healing sands', with radiation levels of 175 mSv per year. Spots of 12 mSv/year in the Fukushima area are just *fine*.<br />
<br />
"The radiation has not been the disaster. It's our response to the radiation, our fear that we've projected on to others, to say this is really dangerous. It isn't really dangerous and there are plenty of places in the world where you would live with background radiation of at least this level."<br />
<br />
" If I were to stand outside here for 12 hours a day, every day of the year, I would receive an annual extra dose of radiation of around 13 millisieverts." <br />
<br />
"...[this is] more than ten times above what the Japanese government has declared "safe" for people to return."<br />
<br />
"There are places in Cornwall in the UK where background radiation levels reach 8 millisieverts a year.<br />
<br />
The world's highest background radiation rate is found in the city of Ramsar in Iran, which has the astonishing rate of 250 millisieverts a year."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Consequences of nuclear shutdown ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-down-japans-nuclear-plants-after-fukushima-was-a-bad-idea/ Shutting Down All Of Japan’s Nuclear Plants After Fukushima Was A Bad Idea] James Conca; Forbes; 31 Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
By now, more Japanese have died from the closing of Japan's nuclear power plants following the 2011 Tohoku quake than from the tsunami and the earthquake combined, which was about 20,000 people.<br />
<br />
Of course, no one has died from any radiation released from the reactor, and no one ever will. There just wasn’t enough dose to anyone.<br />
<br />
These conclusions are now echoed across the scientific and medical communities. The [http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf latest study], from Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida and Marcella Veronesi, discusses how after [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident], when all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, there was a significant increase in electricity prices and in public mortality.<br />
<br />
The increase in price led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. An increase in mortality also occurred from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, which causes upper respiratory effects. The estimate of these combined mortalities outnumbers the mortality from the tsunami and earthquake themselves, suggesting that the knee-jerk decision to cease nuclear production was a very bad idea.<br />
<br />
The immediate urge to shut down all Japanese nuclear reactors after the event was understandable, but Japan only had 15 reactors out of 54 that were at risk of tsunamis. Shutting down these reactors was reasonable in order to determine how to make them more resistant to this particular threat.<br />
<br />
The other reactors not at risk should have continued operating during the safety review following the accident, during formation of the new nuclear regulatory authority, and during the development and implementation of the new safety measures.<br />
<br />
...<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident] Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida, Marcella Veronesi; IZA Institute of Labor Economics; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|This paper provides a large scale, empirical evaluation of unintended effects from invoking the precautionary principle after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. After the accident, all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, causing an exogenous increase in electricity prices. This increase led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increase in mortality from higher electricity prices outnumbers the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting the decision to cease nuclear production has contributed to more deaths than the accident itself.}}<br />
<br />
== Wildlife ==<br />
<br />
"Study shows animal life thriving around Fukushima" by Vicky L. Sutton-Jackson, 6 Jan 2020, [https://news.uga.edu/animal-life-thriving-around-fukushima/ University of Georgia]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Nearly a decade after the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan, researchers from the University of Georgia have found that wildlife populations are abundant in areas void of human life.<br />
<br />
The camera study, published in the Journal of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, reports that over 267,000 wildlife photos recorded more than 20 species, including wild boar, Japanese hare, macaques, pheasant, fox and the raccoon dog—a relative of the fox—in various areas of the landscape.<br />
<br />
UGA wildlife biologist James Beasley said speculation and questions have come from both the scientific community and the general public about the status of wildlife years after a nuclear accident like those in Chernobyl and Fukushima.<br />
<br />
This recent study, in addition to the team’s research in Chernobyl, provides answers to the questions.<br />
<br />
“Our results represent the first evidence that numerous species of wildlife are now abundant throughout the Fukushima Evacuation Zone, despite the presence of radiological contamination,” said Beasley, associate professor at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources.<br />
<br />
Species that are often in conflict with humans, particularly wild boar, were predominantly captured on camera in human-evacuated areas or zones, according to Beasley.<br />
<br />
“This suggests these species have increased in abundance following the evacuation of people.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
"Rewilding of Fukushima's human evacuation zone" by Phillip C Lyons, Kei Okuda, Matthew T Hamilton, Thomas G Hinton, James C Beasley; 6 Jan 2020 [https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2149 esa journals]<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
There is substantial interest in understanding the ecological impacts of the nuclear accidents at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants. However, population‐level data for large mammals have been limited, and there remains much speculation regarding the status of wildlife species in these areas. Using a network of remote cameras placed along a gradient of radiological contamination and human presence, we collected data on population‐level impacts to wildlife (that is, abundance and occupancy patterns) following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. We found no evidence of population‐level impacts in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals or gallinaceous birds, and show several species were most abundant in human‐evacuated areas, despite the presence of radiological contamination. These data provide unique evidence of the natural rewilding of the Fukushima landscape following human abandonment, and suggest that if any effects of radiological exposure in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals in the Fukushima Exclusion Zone exist, they occur at individual or molecular scales, and do not appear to manifest in population‐level responses.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Marine effects ==<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2012/06/detectable-but-not-hazardous-radioactive-marine-life-of-fukushima/ Detectable but not hazardous: radioactive marine life of Fukushima] Miriam Goldstein; Deep Sea News; 1 Jun 2012<br />
<br />
[http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/fukushima-radiation Fukushima Radiation] Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution<br />
{{Quote| Scientists continue to study the effects of radioactive contaminants on the marine environment following the earthquake, tsunamis, and resulting radiation leads from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/ True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster] Dr Martini; Deep Sea News; 28 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
On March 11th, 2011 the Tōhoku earthquake and resulting tsunami wreaked havoc on Japan. It also resulted in the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl when the tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere and ocean, contaminating groundwater, soil and seawater which effectively closed local Japanese fisheries.<br />
<br />
Rather unfortunately, it has also led to some wild speculation on the widespread dangers of Fukushima radiation on the internet. <br />
}}<br />
: ''contains Simpsons guide to radiation and debunks of some scare stories''<br />
<br />
== Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
[http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/08/unimaginable-levels-radiation-fukushima-pacific-ocean-leaks Radiation at Japan's Fukushima Reactor Is Now at 'Unimaginable' Levels] Fox News; 8 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
[[file:NOAA tsunami wave height map.jpg | 300px | right | thumb | NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, with key showing mapping of colours to wave height'']]<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170223024958/http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/02a91dbeabeb6f9cebb3de75e65dd275 Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It's Going To Get Worse)] zerohedge.com; 21 Feb 2017 ''(via Internet Archive)''<br />
{{Quote|<br />
''Story using the NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, which hasn't even cropped out the legend showing height mapping to colours''<br />
<br />
''Floats the conspiracy theory that General Electric has managed to suppress reporting on Fukushima for last 5 years''<br />
<br />
''Claims that'' "Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs" ''and that'' "the US and Canadian governments have banned their citizens from talking about Fukushima so “people don’t panic.”" ''(citing a [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468 2012 BBC News report] on the Harper government's media protocol)''<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp Oh, Fukushima] Snopes<br />
{{Quote|A chart purportedly showing radioactive water seeping into the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear plant actually depicts something else.}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/whats-really-going-on-at-fukushima/ What’s Really Going on at Fukushima?] ROBERT HUNZIKER; Counterpunch; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: ''Quotes Helen Caldicott. Also includes claims about Chernobyl, including 1 million deaths.''<br />
<br />
[http://www.realfarmacy.com/whales-die-pacific-ocean-scientists-suspect-fukushima/ Whales Continue to Die Off in Pacific Ocean: Scientists Suspect Fukushima Radiation at Fault] RealFarmacy<br />
<br />
=== USS Ronald Reagan ===<br />
[https://www.thenation.com/article/seven-years-on-sailors-exposed-to-fukushima-radiation-seek-their-day-in-court/ 7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court] Gregg Levine; The Nation; 9 Mar 2018<br />
{{Quote|Special investigation: US military personnel are sick and dying, and want the nuclear plant’s designers and owners to take responsibility.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/06/23/court-sailors-can-sue-in-us-over-japanese-nuclear-disaster/ Court: Sailors can sue in US over Japanese nuclear disaster] The Associated Press; Navy Times; 22 June 2017<br />
{{Quote|SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court says members of the U.S. Navy can pursue their lawsuit in a U.S. court alleging radiation exposure from Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the sailors for now don't have to make their legal claims in Japan. Their lawsuit accuses Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the Japanese government of conspiring to keep secret the extent of the radiation leak following a 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed thousands of people. The plaintiffs arrived off the coast of Fukushima aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other vessels to provide humanitarian aid a day after the quake. }}<br />
<br />
[https://www.health.mil/Reference-Center/Reports/2014/06/19/Radiation-Exposure-Report Letter from US DoD re Radiation Exposure on USS Ronald Regan]<br />
{{Quote|Some sailors who developed cancer and other serious health conditions allege radiation exposures while serving on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi may be the cause. There is no objective evidence that the sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi experienced radiation exposures that would result in an increase in the expected number of radiogenic diseases over time. The estimated radiation doses for all individuals in the Operation Tomodachi registry, including sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN, were very small and well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions. A detailed explanation of the data collection, methodologies, analyses, and conclusions are included in the enclosed report.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-fukushima-radiation-class-action Judge Tosses Fukushima Radiation Class Action] Bianca Bruno; Courthouse News Service; 4 Mar 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Hundreds of American sailors who filed two class actions claiming to have suffered physical abnormalities, cancer and death stemming from exposure to radiation while on a humanitarian mission to Fukushima, Japan in 2011 were dealt a blow Monday when their cases were dismissed, paving the way for their claims to be brought in Japan.<br />
<br />
U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino found in a “close call” in two separate orders, class actions brought against Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, and General Electric, should be dismissed without prejudice so the service members’ claims could be brought in Japan if they choose to revive them.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== [[Chris Busby]] ===<br />
Busby has written for the Russian state propaganda outlet RT.com: [https://www.rt.com/op-edge/335362-fukushima-nuclear-japan-bbc/ Is Fukushima's nuclear nightmare over? Don’t count on it] Chris Busby; RT; 12 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
and for [[The Ecologist]]: <br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2987398/no_matter_what_bbc_says_fukushima_disaster_is_killing_people.html No matter what BBC says: Fukushima disaster is killing people] Chris Busby; The Ecologist; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Sherman & Mangano ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION?] Joseph J. Mangano, Janette D. Sherman; International Journal of Health Services; 2012<br />
{{Quote|The multiple nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima plants beginning on March 11, 2011, are releasing large amounts of airborne radioactivity that has spread throughout Japan and to other nations; thus, studies of contamination and health hazards are merited. In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns. Some samples of radioactivity in precipitation, air, water, and milk, taken by the U.S. government, showed levels hundreds of times above normal; however, the small number of samples prohibits any credible analysis of temporal trends and spatial comparisons. U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80 percent, compared with a previous 8.37 percent decrease. Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected. These preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986, which approximated final figures.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Rebuttals of Sherman & Mangano ====<br />
<br />
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study] Michael Moyer; Scientific American; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
In June [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ I wrote about] a claim that babies in the U.S. were dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation. A close look at the accusation revealed that the data used by the authors to make the argument showed no such thing. "That data is publicly available," I wrote, "and a check reveals that [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths]." The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.<br />
<br />
Now the authors have published a revised study ([http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf PDF]) in the [http://www.baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services]. A press release published to herald the article warns, "[http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease111219FukushimaReactorFallout.html 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Fallout]." This is an alarming accusation. Let's see how the authors defend it.<br />
<br />
First, the authors assert: "In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns." They provide no evidence for this assertion, no citation to back up their facts. The authors then note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitored radioactivity in milk, water and air in the weeks and months following the disaster. Ah, here must be the data, the careful reader hopes. Alas, "the number of samples for which the EPA was able to detect measurable concentrations of radioactivity is relatively few," the authors write. They then conclude, with evident disappointment, that "clearly, the 2011 EPA reports cannot be used with confidence for any comprehensive assessment of temporal trends and spatial patterns of U.S. environmental radiation levels originating in Japan." In other words, the EPA didn't find evidence for the plume that our entire argument depends on, so "clearly" we can't trust the agency's data.<br />
<br />
Yet even if there isn't evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: "U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks....Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths." In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.<br />
<br />
To unpack a little more, the authors take mortality figures from the [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports]. I talk a little about these reports in my [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ original piece]. Suffice it to say that they are an incomplete record of deaths in the U.S. (as the authors acknowledge). The authors draw a hard line at the week of March 20, 2011, the 12th week of the year. They sum up all deaths around the country for both the 14 weeks preceding and the 14 weeks following March 20, 2011. They do the same for 2010. They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010. The 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2011 (presumably before the radiation plume arrived and spread across the land) include only 2.34 percent more dead people than the 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2010. Since the CDC only reports on about 23.5 percent of all deaths, the authors claim, they helpfully multiply the supposed "excess" by 1/0.235 to arrive at the final number of 13,893 deaths.<br />
<br />
No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are [http://www.radiation.org/ anti-nuclear activists] unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the "excess" deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.<br />
<br />
The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-health-risks-scrutin radiation from Fukushima is dangerous], and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coming-clean-about-nuclear-power serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play] in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.<br />
<br />
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.<br />
<br />
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)<br />
<br />
Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/2011/12/20/fukushima-alarmist-claim-obscure-medical-journal-proceed-caution Fukushima: Alarmist Claim? Obscure Medical Journal? Proceed With Caution] Barbara Feder Ostrov; University of Southern California Center for Health Journalism blog; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''UPDATE: Click [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n here] for a response from International Journal of Health Services Editor-in-Chief Vicente Navarro.'''<br />
<br />
The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy press release] trumpeted a startling claim: researchers had linked radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster to 14,000 deaths in the United States, with infants hardest hit.<br />
<br />
"This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima," the press release bragged in announcing the study's publication today. The press release, which compared the disaster's impact to Chernobyl, appeared via PR Newswire on mainstream news sites, including the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy Sacramento Bee] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://news.yahoo.com/medical-journal-article-14-000-u-deaths-tied-160111170.html Yahoo! News].<br />
<br />
Casual readers who didn't realize this was only a press release could be forgiven for thinking this was a spit-out-your-coffee story. But with a little online research and guidance from veteran health journalists [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer], I quickly learned that there's a lot less to [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,6,13;journal,1,165;browsepublicationsresults,7,24; this study] and to the medical journal that published it. Read on for their advice on what journalists can learn from this episode.<br />
<br />
Normally, reporters are supposed to feel better about research that's been peer-reviewed before publication in a scientific journal. But the claims of the press release were just so outlandish, warning bells went off.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, the authors, Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, published a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/is-the-increase-in-baby-deaths-in-the-us-a-result-of-fukushima-fallout/ version of this study] in the political newsletter Counterpunch, where it was quickly criticized. The critics charged that the authors [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2011/06/21/counterpunch-verifies-infant-mortality-fraud-but-seems-to-create-one-themselves/ had cherry-picked federal data on infant deaths] so they would spike around the time of the Fukushima disaster. Passions over nuclear safety further muddied the debate: both researchers and some critics had activist baggage, with the researchers characterized as anti-nuke and the critics as pro-nuke.<br />
<br />
As Scientific American's Michael Moyer [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ writes]: "The authors appeared to start from a conclusion-babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation-and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims."<br />
<br />
So how did such a seemingly flawed study wind up in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
I researched the journal, the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services], and its editor, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1041/Navarro/Vicente Vicente Navarro]. Navarro, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's prestigious school of public health, looked legit, but the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0020-7314_International_Journal_of_Health_Services journal's "impact factor"] (a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ measure of a research journal's credibility and influence]) was less impressive. (I emailed and called Navarro for comment; I'll [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n update this post] if I hear back from him.)<br />
<br />
I asked [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky], executive editor of Reuters Health and co-founder of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Retraction Watch] blog, and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.healthnewsreview.org/ Health News Review] founder [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer]: how can journalists better evaluate when to cover (and more importantly, when not to cover) the medical research stories that cross their desks?<br />
<br />
Their consensus: just because a study's peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's credible. And evaluating a journal's impact factor can be helpful, but it's not sufficient.<br />
<br />
Here's what Oransky had to say:<br />
<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
I do use impact factor to judge journals, while accepting that it's an imperfect measure that is used in all sorts of inappropriate ways (and, for the sake of full disclosure, is a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ Thomson Scientific product], as in Thomson Reuters). I find it helpful to rank journals within a particular specialty. It's not the only metric I use to figure out what to cover, but if I'm looking at a field with dozens or even more than 100 journals, it's a good first-pass filter. There's competition to publish in journals, which means high-impact journals have much lower acceptance rates. And if citations are any measure at all of whether journals are read, then they're obviously read more, too.<br />
<br />
I looked up the journal in question, and it's actually ranked 45th out of 58 in the Health Policy and Services category (in the social sciences rankings) and 59th out of 72 in the Health Care Sciences & Services category (in the science rankings).<br />
<br />
As to how this could get published in a peer-reviewed journal, well, not all peer review is created equal. Higher-ranked journals tend to have more thorough peer review. (They also, perhaps not surprisingly, have [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://bjoern.brembs.net/comment-n811.html higher rates of retractions]. Whether that's because people push the envelope to publish in them, or there are more eyeballs on them, or there's some other reason, is unclear. But there's no evidence that it's because their peer review is less thorough.)<br />
<br />
Finally, I'd refer readers to this [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html great primer on peer review] by Maggie Koerth-Baker.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Gary Schwitzer also provided these helpful tips for journalists:<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
1. Brush up on the writings of [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ John Ioannidis], who has written a great deal in recent years about the flaws in published research.<br />
<br />
2. Journalists who live on a steady diet of journal articles almost by definition promote a rose-colored view of progress in research if they don't grasp and convey the publication bias in many journals for positive findings. Negative or null findings may not be viewed as sexy enough. Or they may be squelched prior to submission. While perhaps not a factor in this one case, it nonetheless drives home the point to journalists about the need to critically evaluate studies.<br />
<br />
3. In this case, a journalist would be well-served by a friendly local biostatistician's review.<br />
<br />
4. It is always more helpful to focus on the quality of the study rather than the impact factor of the journal or the reputation of the researcher (for reasons Ivan articulated). However, these are legitimate questions to ask any published researcher: "Why did you choose to submit your work to that journal? Did you submit it elsewhere and was it rejected? If so, what feedback did you get from the peer reviewers?"<br />
}}<br />
'''Related Posts:'''<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n Fukushima Fallout and Infant Deaths: International Journal of Health Services' Vicente Navarro Responds]<br />
}}<br />
<br />
In a post [http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/ JOSEPH MANGANO NEVER STOPS, AND HE NEVER GETS IT RIGHT] on the "Nuclear Power Yes Please blog" on 29 Aug 2012, "LANTZELOT" writes:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* '''Mangano claims that the total number of deaths in Japan rose with 4.8% during 2011, compared with the "normal" increase of 1.5%.''' There is no "normal" increase of 1.5%, though for the last 20 years the average increase in the number of deaths (due to an ageing population and decreasing birth rate) has been about 2%. For individual years the increase varies drastically, being above 4% six times since 1990. Thus the 4.8% increase during 2011 is not very spectacular.<br />
<br />
* '''Out of the about 1.2 million Japanese that die every year the 4.8% increase means an excess of 57,900 deaths compared with 2010. When subtracting the victims of the tsunami and earthquake there is still an excess of 38,700 deaths with no obvious cause.''' Mangano fails to mention that also in 2010 there was an "excess" of more than 55,000 deaths, compared with the year before. Yes, that is 55,000 excess deaths without a tsunami, without the release of radioactivity, and without alarmistic claims by Mangano.<br />
<br />
* '''"38,700 deaths with no obvious cause", or "38,700 additional unexplained deaths" is repeated, implying that maybe Fukushima did it.''' The majority of the deaths are not unexplained, they are classified into about 130 different categories, carefully filed by the MHLW. There is however a category called "Other causes" which include those deaths that can not be classified according to the other categories. For 2011 this category has about 5,000 deaths, which may still sound alarming. It should be noted that this is only 150 more than for 2010, and the variation between different years may be much larger than that. Furthermore, those deaths from "other causes" are not mysterious or due to some death ray directly from Fukushima, they just do not fit into any of the other 130 categories.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{refs}}<br />
<br />
=== William T. Vollmann - No Immediate Danger ===<br />
<br />
[http://progressandperil.com/2018/04/09/the-ideology-of-fear-william-t-vollman-and-nuclear-power/ The Ideology of Fear: William T. Vollmann and Nuclear Power] Will Boisvert; Progress and Peril; 9 Apr 2018<br />
: Review of No Immediate Danger: Volume One of Carbon Ideologies<br />
<br />
=== Debunking ===<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/ Are Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Really Over?] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 2 Sep 2013<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/ More Fukushima Scaremongering Debunked] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 28 Oct 2013<br />
: "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima"<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/11/25/dire-warnings-and-melting-starfish-fukushima-fear/ Dire Warnings and Melting Starfish: Fukushima Fearmongering, Volume 3] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 25 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: The ocean is broken. <br />
* CLAIM: David Suzuki's Dire Warning. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima is as bad as 14,000 Hiroshima bombs.<br />
* CLAIM: The scary radiation map. <br />
* CLAIM: Cancer rates are spiking in Fukushima's children. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima radiation is the cause of an epidemic of melting sea stars. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/20/fukushima-fear-vol-4/ Fukushima Fear, Vol. 4: More Nonsense Than You Can Shake a Giant Squid At] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 20 Jan 2014<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: OMG! A giant squid beached itself in Santa Monica! Fukushima! <br />
* CLAIM: Two underground nuclear explosions rocked the Fukushima site on New Year's Eve, forcing Russia's Ministry of Defense to go on high alert — and causing TEPCO to quietly admit that Reactor 3 was melting down. GAME OVER!!! <br />
* CLAIM: Radioactive steam was seen pouring off Reactor 3, meaning it's in the middle of a meltdown. <br />
* CLAIM: A dude with a Geiger counter went to a California beach and found radiation levels off the charts! Evacuate the west coast at once!<br />
* CLAIM: 98% of the Pacific sea floor is covered in dead creatures nuked by Fukushima.<br />
* CLAIM: A mass die-off of sardines in the Pacific is because of Fukushima radiation. <br />
* CLAIM: California scientists are going to start monitoring kelp forests, because they know Fukushima radiation is killing us all!<br />
* CLAIM: The US government bought 14 million potassium iodide doses to protect the wealthy elite from radiation! APOCALYPSE AHOY!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.earthtouchnews.com/oceans/oceans/heres-your-go-to-source-for-debunking-all-the-fukushima-fables Here's your go-to source for debunking all the Fukushima fables] Sarah Keartes; Earth Touch News; 25 Feb 2016<br />
{{Quote|From "mutant" eels to fish "tumours", viral stories linking the Fukushima nuclear disaster to seemingly strange marine events are probably crowding your news feed. And each time one pops up, radiation-related panic spirals ensue.}}<br />
<br />
[https://m.facebook.com/1561335957440623/photos/a.1561349920772560.1073741827.1561335957440623/1681156132125271/?type=3&source=54 what you get searching Google images for Fukushima] Refutations to Anti-Nuclear Memes; facebook<br />
<br />
== Onagawa ==<br />
[http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 Onagawa: The Japanese nuclear power plant that didn’t melt down on 3/11]<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160403020718/http://energyforhumanity.org/nuclear/nuclear-is-normal-when-your-local-reactor-is-the-safest-place-in-the-world/ Nuclear is Normal: When Your Local Reactor is the Safest Place in the World] Energy For Humanity (via Internet Archive Wayback Machine); 6 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
1993. The second boiling water reactor at the Tōhoku Electric Co’s Onagawa nuclear station is completed after a three and a half year build, costing $2.64 billion in today’s US dollars. The site is already elevated and fortified beyond historical tsunami indications, the legacy of a corporate safety culture instilled by vice president Yanosuke Hirai. This diligence pervaded and persisted through the company, driving safety focus and disaster preparedness. A further unit is later constructed beside Onagawa-2. The plant operates well above average Japanese availability factor.<br />
<br />
The response of Onagawa to the natural disasters in 2011 has been detailed in the literature by senior personnel, as well as by an independent journalist. All three reactors shut down automatically, as designed, when the quake struck. Workers were quick to organise and get to work ensuring the plant’s safety. Backup power sytems including diesel generators and offsite power lines were safe from the waves and continued to cool the decay heat within the reactor cores. Tsunami damage was limited to a non-safety switchgear fire and auxiliary building flooding.<br />
<br />
The safety and electricity at the plant in the midst of unprecedented devastation drew local survivors. Hundreds of people were housed in Onagawa’s gymnasium for three months and provided with warmth and supplies.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Cleanup ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ Clearing the Radioactive Rubble Heap That Was Fukushima Daiichi, 7 Years On] Tim Hornyak; Scientific American; 9 Mar 2018<br />
: The water is tainted, the wreckage is dangerous, and disposing of it will be a prolonged, complex and costly process</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Fukushima&diff=5486Fukushima2022-07-19T12:12:36Z<p>Sisussman: /* Norwegian study */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 1]]<br />
[[Category: Nuclear energy]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident Fukushima nuclear accident] J.M.K.C. Donev et al.; University of Calgary Energy Education; 3 Sep 2015<br />
<br />
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a19871/fukushima-five-years-later/ Five Years Later, Cutting Through the Fukushima Myths] Andrew Karam; Popular Mechanics; 11 Mar 2016<br />
:Radiation expert Andrew Karam, who covered the disaster for Popular Mechanics in 2011 and later traveled to study the site, explains everything you need to know about Fukushima's legacy and danger five years later.<br />
<br />
: March 11, 2011 was a day of unimaginable tragedy in northern Japan, a tragedy exacerbated by the reactor meltdowns and release of contamination. But the nuclear part of this horrible day was, if the longest-lasting, certainly the least lethal event. Yet it's the part that still engenders so much fear. With the fifth anniversary of the Fukushima accident upon us this month, let's take a look at where things stand today with recovering from this calamity, and what might be happening next.<br />
<br />
[https://mothersfornuclear.org/our-thoughts/2018/3/11/fukushima-perspectivefromareactoroperatoron3/11-7yearslater Fukushima: Perspective from a Reactor Operator on 3/11 Seven Years Later] Heather; Mothers for Nuclear; 10 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
[https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/was-fallout-from-fukushima-exaggerated What was the fallout from Fukushima?] Fred Pearce; The Observer; 3 Jun 2018<br />
: Shunichi Yamashita knows a lot of about the health effects of radiation. But he is a pariah in his home country of Japan, because he insists on telling those evacuated after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident that the hazards are much less than they suppose. Could he be right?<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-glass-beads-may-tell-the-terrible-tale-of-how-the-fukushima-meltdown-unfolded Radioactive Glass Beads May Tell the Terrible Tale of How the Fukushima Meltdown Unfolded] Andrea Thompson; Scientific American; 11 Mar 2019<br />
: The microscopic particles unleashed by the plant’s explosions are also a potential environmental and health concern<br />
<br />
== Radioactivity and radiation effects ==<br />
[http://new.atmc.jp/ Radioactivity monitoring around Fukushima]<br />
: graphics and tables from atmc.jp<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
=== Politicisation and political effects ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html#disqus_thread The world has forgotten the real victims of Fukushima] Michael Hanlon; Daily Telegraph; 21 Feb 2012<br />
: A natural disaster that cost the lives of thousands of people was ignored in favour of a nuclear 'disaster’ that never was, argues Michael Hanlon.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17287740 Global fallout: Did Fukushima scupper nuclear power?] Richard Black, Environment correspondent; BBC News; <br />
10 Mar 2012<br />
<br />
== Health effects ==<br />
=== WHO ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/health-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident Health consequences of Fukushima nuclear accident] WHO news Room; 10 March 2016 <br />
{{Quote|<br />
* What happened?<br />
* What were the main radionuclides to which people were exposed?<br />
* What levels of radiation have people been exposed to?<br />
* What were the main public health consequences of the disaster?<br />
* What are the health implications of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (FDNPS) nuclear accident?<br />
* Is there a risk of radiation-induced thyroid cancer among children of Fukushima prefecture?<br />
* Is there any risk from radioactive food contamination in Japan today?<br />
* What are the public health lessons learned from the response to Fukushima?<br />
* What was WHO response?<br />
* What is being done to mitigate the public health impact of the Fukushima accident?<br />
}}<br />
: + links to other documents<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/ Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks] World Health Organisation; 28 Feb 2013<br />
{{Quote|A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On] World Health Organisation<br />
<br />
=== UNSCEAR ===<br />
[https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html "The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power station accident / UNSCEAR's assessments of levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great East-Japan earthquake and tsunami"] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation <br />
<br />
{{qq|On 11 March 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered major damage from the failure of equipment after the magnitude 9.0 great east-Japan earthquake and subsequent tsunami. It was the largest civilian nuclear accident since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Radioactive material was released from the damaged plant and tens of thousands of people were evacuated.<br />
<br />
In May 2011, the Committee embarked upon a two-year assessment of the levels and effects of radiation exposure from the accident. It reported its findings to the General Assembly in October 2013 ( A/68/46), and a detailed publication titled 'Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami' with the supporting scientific data and evaluation was issued online on 2 April 2014 [ English] [ Japanese].<br />
<br />
The main focus of the UNSCEAR 2013 Report was on assessing the exposure to radiation of various groups of the population, and the implied effects in terms of radiation-induced risks for human health and the environment. The population groups considered included residents of the Fukushima Prefecture and other prefectures in Japan; and workers, contractors and others who were engaged in the emergency work at or around the accident site. The environmental assessment addressed marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Geraldine Thomas ===<br />
[http://www.clinicaloncologyonline.net/issue/S0936-6555(16)X0003-9 Fukushima - Five Years On] Clinical Oncology; Edited by Gerry Thomas; Apr 2016<br />
: edition of journal devoted to studies of Fukushima<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761136 Is Fukushima's exclusion zone doing more harm than radiation?] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes; BBC; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: includes [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761141 interview with Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College]<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
: There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster dispute about the neutrality of this article]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601011/the-effects-of-fukushima-linger-after-five-years-but-not-from-radiation/ The Effects of Fukushima Linger After Five Years - But Not From Radiation] Richard Martin; MIT Technology Review; 10 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Norwegian study ===<br />
[http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-6605.pdf Global transport of Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to Asia, North America and Europe. Estimated doses and expected health effects] Nikolaos Evangeliou, Andreas Stohl, Yves Balkanski; Geophysical Research Abstracts; 2017<br />
{{qq|An attempt to assess exposure of the population and the environment showed that the effective dose from gamma irradiation during the first 3 months was estimated between 1−5 mSv in Fukushima and the neighbouring prefectures. In the rest of Japan, the respective doses were found to be less than 0.5 mSv, whereas in the rest of the world it was less than 0.1 mSv. Such doses are equivalent with the obtained dose from a simple X-ray; for the highly contaminated regions, they are close to the dose limit for exposure due to radon inhalation (10 mSv). The calculated dose rates from radiocesium exposure on reference organisms ranged from 0.03 to 0.18 µGy h−1, which are 2 orders of magnitude below the screening dose limit (10 µGy h−1) that could result in obvious effects on the population. However, monitoring data have shown that much higher dose rates were committed to organisms raising ecological risk for small mammals and reptiles in terms of cytogenetic damage and reproduction.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencealert.com/fukushima-s-meltdown-gave-you-about-100-bananas-worth-of-radiation Fukushima's Meltdown Gave Every Human on Earth 1,000 Bananas' Worth of Radiation] MIKE MCRAE; Science Alert; 8 MAY 2017<br />
{{qq|Assuming you've been living on Earth since the nuclear reactor at Fukushima in Japan was struck by a tsunami in March 2011, there's a good chance you copped about 1,000 bananas' worth of radiation over the past six years as a result of the meltdown.<br />
<br />
That's what the Norwegian Institute for Air Research calculated, based on how far two radioactive isotopes of caesium have spread, putting the dosage for most people outside Japan at less than 0.1 millisievert – also equivalent to receiving one X-ray.<br />
<br />
Of course, if you happened to be a little closer to the event – say, in Japan – the average dose over the few years that followed was closer to 0.5 millisieverts, which isn't even close to what you'd get if you underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan in hospital.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Thyroid cancer and effects of screening ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/pdf/thy.2017.0283.pdf Lessons from Fukushima: Latest Findings of Thyroid Cancer After the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident] Shunichi Yamashita, Shinichi Suzuki, Satoru Suzuki, Hiroki Shimura, Vladimir Saenko<br />
: The accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused a biased risk perception, which is now a pressing social problem similar to that observed after Chernobyl. Consequently, the association between radiation and the thyroid has reminded people of the reiteration of Chernobyl and brought about a simplistic way of assuming that the high incidence of thyroid cancers has been caused by radiation exposure. This, in turn, has further augmented excessive anxiety, worries, and wrong interpretations of the results of elaborate large-scale ultrasound thyroid screening, having a psychological and mental impact on those exposed to radiation.<br />
<br />
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full Epidemic of fear] Dennis Normile; Science; 4 Mar 2016 ''(paywalled)''<br />
<br />
[https://www.wired.com/2016/03/cancer-rates-spiked-fukushima-dont-blame-radiation/ CANCER RATES SPIKED AFTER FUKUSHIMA. BUT DON'T BLAME RADIATION] Sarah Fallon; Wired; 9 Mar 2016<br />
: Now, some people actually might have had to worry about radioactive iodine being sucked up into their thyroids: the families (especially kids) living near the Fukushima Daiichi plant. And indeed, kids in the region were screened for thyroid cancer in the years following the disaster. A piece in Science last week walks through the history of this screening, and the lessons it offers are instructive—for any human being who ever requires medical care.<br />
<br />
: On its face, as Dennis Normile describes, the initial finding from screenings in Japan was super alarming. Almost half (half!) of those screened had nodules or cysts (which can potentially be or become cancerous) on their thyroids.<br />
<br />
: Nuts, right? And a Japanese epidemiologist named Toshihide Tsuda published a paper in 2015 saying that the rate of thyroid cancer in those Fukushima kids was more than 600 per million—way higher than the 1 to 3 cases per million kids that you would expect. But! As Normile writes, that comparison wasn’t quite fair. The Fukushima survey used advanced ultrasound devices that can detect tiny growths, while the older data came from plain old clinical exams. Oops. You have an apples to oranges thing going on there, in terms of your diagnostic instruments.<br />
<br />
: Indeed, when other scientists screened kids elsewhere in Japan using the fancy ultrasound devices, rates of cancer were anywhere from 300 to 1,300 per million. What the ultrasound devices find, then, is a whole lot of turtles.<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Thyroid_screening_program Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster -- Thyroid screening program] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
== Consequences of evacuation ==<br />
[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/14/national/fukushima-evacuations-were-not-worth-the-money-study-says/ Fukushima evacuations were not worth the money, study says] WILLIAM HOLLINGWORTH; The Japan Times; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
: The costs of evacuating residents from near the Fukushima No. 1 plant and the dislocation the people experienced were greater than their expected gain in longevity, a British study has found.<br />
<br />
: The researchers found that at best evacuees could expect to live eight months longer, but that some might gain only one extra day of life. They said this does not warrant ripping people from their homes and communities.<br />
<br />
: The team of experts from four British universities developed a series of tests to examine the relocations after the Fukushima crisis and earlier Chernobyl disaster in 1986.<br />
<br />
: After a three-year study, the academics have concluded that Japan “overreacted” by relocating 160,000 residents of Fukushima Prefecture, even though radioactive material fell on more than 30,000 sq. km of territory.<br />
<br />
: “We judged that no one should have been relocated in Fukushima, and it could be argued this was a knee-jerk reaction,” said Philip Thomas, a professor of risk management at Bristol University. “It did more harm than good. An awful lot of disruption has been caused However, this is with hindsight and we are not blaming the authorities.”<br />
<br />
: The team used a wide range of economic and actuarial data, as well as information from the United Nations and the Japanese government.<br />
<br />
=== Stress and mental health effects ===<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk]<br />
(NY Times; 21 Sep 2015)<br />
{{Quote|<br />
No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.<br />
<br />
But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/20/national/post-quake-illnesses-kill-more-in-fukushima-than-2011-disaster Fukushima stress deaths top 3/11 toll] Japan Times; 20 Feb 2014<br />
{{Quote|FUKUSHIMA – Stress and other illnesses related to the 2011 quake and tsunami had killed 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture as of Wednesday, outnumbering the 1,607 whose deaths were directly tied to disaster-caused injuries, according to data compiled by the prefecture and local police.<br />
<br />
A prefectural official said many people “have undergone drastic changes in their lives and are still unable to map out their future plans, such as homecoming, causing increased stress on them.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html Fukushima and the Art of Knowing] Clare Leppold; Huffington Post; 18 Jun 2016<br />
{{Quote|When trying to evacuate, some were turned away from the homes of their families because radiation was misunderstood as contagious. I am told about the parents of young men, opposing their choice to marry a woman from Fukushima because it is assumed that she will not be able to bear healthy children. Some children themselves believe they will never be able to have healthy offspring in the future, because of what they have heard.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/904443906340889?comment_id=904574889661124&reply_comment_id=905119912939955&notif_t=share_reply People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes] Thoughtscapism; Facebook; 11 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|This is madness! People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes - the risk from radiation is way below what nuclear plant staff are safely allowed to be exposed to (20 mSv/year). Some of my Finnish countrymen live with the natural radiation of 7 milliSieverts. There's a brazil beach famed for it's 'healing sands', with radiation levels of 175 mSv per year. Spots of 12 mSv/year in the Fukushima area are just *fine*.<br />
<br />
"The radiation has not been the disaster. It's our response to the radiation, our fear that we've projected on to others, to say this is really dangerous. It isn't really dangerous and there are plenty of places in the world where you would live with background radiation of at least this level."<br />
<br />
" If I were to stand outside here for 12 hours a day, every day of the year, I would receive an annual extra dose of radiation of around 13 millisieverts." <br />
<br />
"...[this is] more than ten times above what the Japanese government has declared "safe" for people to return."<br />
<br />
"There are places in Cornwall in the UK where background radiation levels reach 8 millisieverts a year.<br />
<br />
The world's highest background radiation rate is found in the city of Ramsar in Iran, which has the astonishing rate of 250 millisieverts a year."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Consequences of nuclear shutdown ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-down-japans-nuclear-plants-after-fukushima-was-a-bad-idea/ Shutting Down All Of Japan’s Nuclear Plants After Fukushima Was A Bad Idea] James Conca; Forbes; 31 Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
By now, more Japanese have died from the closing of Japan's nuclear power plants following the 2011 Tohoku quake than from the tsunami and the earthquake combined, which was about 20,000 people.<br />
<br />
Of course, no one has died from any radiation released from the reactor, and no one ever will. There just wasn’t enough dose to anyone.<br />
<br />
These conclusions are now echoed across the scientific and medical communities. The [http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf latest study], from Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida and Marcella Veronesi, discusses how after [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident], when all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, there was a significant increase in electricity prices and in public mortality.<br />
<br />
The increase in price led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. An increase in mortality also occurred from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, which causes upper respiratory effects. The estimate of these combined mortalities outnumbers the mortality from the tsunami and earthquake themselves, suggesting that the knee-jerk decision to cease nuclear production was a very bad idea.<br />
<br />
The immediate urge to shut down all Japanese nuclear reactors after the event was understandable, but Japan only had 15 reactors out of 54 that were at risk of tsunamis. Shutting down these reactors was reasonable in order to determine how to make them more resistant to this particular threat.<br />
<br />
The other reactors not at risk should have continued operating during the safety review following the accident, during formation of the new nuclear regulatory authority, and during the development and implementation of the new safety measures.<br />
<br />
...<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident] Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida, Marcella Veronesi; IZA Institute of Labor Economics; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|This paper provides a large scale, empirical evaluation of unintended effects from invoking the precautionary principle after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. After the accident, all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, causing an exogenous increase in electricity prices. This increase led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increase in mortality from higher electricity prices outnumbers the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting the decision to cease nuclear production has contributed to more deaths than the accident itself.}}<br />
<br />
== Wildlife ==<br />
<br />
"Study shows animal life thriving around Fukushima" by Vicky L. Sutton-Jackson, 6 Jan 2020, [https://news.uga.edu/animal-life-thriving-around-fukushima/ University of Georgia]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Nearly a decade after the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan, researchers from the University of Georgia have found that wildlife populations are abundant in areas void of human life.<br />
<br />
The camera study, published in the Journal of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, reports that over 267,000 wildlife photos recorded more than 20 species, including wild boar, Japanese hare, macaques, pheasant, fox and the raccoon dog—a relative of the fox—in various areas of the landscape.<br />
<br />
UGA wildlife biologist James Beasley said speculation and questions have come from both the scientific community and the general public about the status of wildlife years after a nuclear accident like those in Chernobyl and Fukushima.<br />
<br />
This recent study, in addition to the team’s research in Chernobyl, provides answers to the questions.<br />
<br />
“Our results represent the first evidence that numerous species of wildlife are now abundant throughout the Fukushima Evacuation Zone, despite the presence of radiological contamination,” said Beasley, associate professor at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources.<br />
<br />
Species that are often in conflict with humans, particularly wild boar, were predominantly captured on camera in human-evacuated areas or zones, according to Beasley.<br />
<br />
“This suggests these species have increased in abundance following the evacuation of people.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
"Rewilding of Fukushima's human evacuation zone" by Phillip C Lyons, Kei Okuda, Matthew T Hamilton, Thomas G Hinton, James C Beasley; 6 Jan 2020 [https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2149 esa journals]<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
There is substantial interest in understanding the ecological impacts of the nuclear accidents at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants. However, population‐level data for large mammals have been limited, and there remains much speculation regarding the status of wildlife species in these areas. Using a network of remote cameras placed along a gradient of radiological contamination and human presence, we collected data on population‐level impacts to wildlife (that is, abundance and occupancy patterns) following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. We found no evidence of population‐level impacts in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals or gallinaceous birds, and show several species were most abundant in human‐evacuated areas, despite the presence of radiological contamination. These data provide unique evidence of the natural rewilding of the Fukushima landscape following human abandonment, and suggest that if any effects of radiological exposure in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals in the Fukushima Exclusion Zone exist, they occur at individual or molecular scales, and do not appear to manifest in population‐level responses.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Marine effects ==<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2012/06/detectable-but-not-hazardous-radioactive-marine-life-of-fukushima/ Detectable but not hazardous: radioactive marine life of Fukushima] Miriam Goldstein; Deep Sea News; 1 Jun 2012<br />
<br />
[http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/fukushima-radiation Fukushima Radiation] Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution<br />
{{Quote| Scientists continue to study the effects of radioactive contaminants on the marine environment following the earthquake, tsunamis, and resulting radiation leads from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/ True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster] Dr Martini; Deep Sea News; 28 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
On March 11th, 2011 the Tōhoku earthquake and resulting tsunami wreaked havoc on Japan. It also resulted in the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl when the tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere and ocean, contaminating groundwater, soil and seawater which effectively closed local Japanese fisheries.<br />
<br />
Rather unfortunately, it has also led to some wild speculation on the widespread dangers of Fukushima radiation on the internet. <br />
}}<br />
: ''contains Simpsons guide to radiation and debunks of some scare stories''<br />
<br />
== Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
[http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/08/unimaginable-levels-radiation-fukushima-pacific-ocean-leaks Radiation at Japan's Fukushima Reactor Is Now at 'Unimaginable' Levels] Fox News; 8 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
[[file:NOAA tsunami wave height map.jpg | 300px | right | thumb | NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, with key showing mapping of colours to wave height'']]<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170223024958/http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/02a91dbeabeb6f9cebb3de75e65dd275 Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It's Going To Get Worse)] zerohedge.com; 21 Feb 2017 ''(via Internet Archive)''<br />
{{Quote|<br />
''Story using the NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, which hasn't even cropped out the legend showing height mapping to colours''<br />
<br />
''Floats the conspiracy theory that General Electric has managed to suppress reporting on Fukushima for last 5 years''<br />
<br />
''Claims that'' "Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs" ''and that'' "the US and Canadian governments have banned their citizens from talking about Fukushima so “people don’t panic.”" ''(citing a [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468 2012 BBC News report] on the Harper government's media protocol)''<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp Oh, Fukushima] Snopes<br />
{{Quote|A chart purportedly showing radioactive water seeping into the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear plant actually depicts something else.}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/whats-really-going-on-at-fukushima/ What’s Really Going on at Fukushima?] ROBERT HUNZIKER; Counterpunch; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: ''Quotes Helen Caldicott. Also includes claims about Chernobyl, including 1 million deaths.''<br />
<br />
[http://www.realfarmacy.com/whales-die-pacific-ocean-scientists-suspect-fukushima/ Whales Continue to Die Off in Pacific Ocean: Scientists Suspect Fukushima Radiation at Fault] RealFarmacy<br />
<br />
=== USS Ronald Reagan ===<br />
[https://www.thenation.com/article/seven-years-on-sailors-exposed-to-fukushima-radiation-seek-their-day-in-court/ 7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court] Gregg Levine; The Nation; 9 Mar 2018<br />
{{Quote|Special investigation: US military personnel are sick and dying, and want the nuclear plant’s designers and owners to take responsibility.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/06/23/court-sailors-can-sue-in-us-over-japanese-nuclear-disaster/ Court: Sailors can sue in US over Japanese nuclear disaster] The Associated Press; Navy Times; 22 June 2017<br />
{{Quote|SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court says members of the U.S. Navy can pursue their lawsuit in a U.S. court alleging radiation exposure from Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the sailors for now don't have to make their legal claims in Japan. Their lawsuit accuses Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the Japanese government of conspiring to keep secret the extent of the radiation leak following a 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed thousands of people. The plaintiffs arrived off the coast of Fukushima aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other vessels to provide humanitarian aid a day after the quake. }}<br />
<br />
[https://www.health.mil/Reference-Center/Reports/2014/06/19/Radiation-Exposure-Report Letter from US DoD re Radiation Exposure on USS Ronald Regan]<br />
{{Quote|Some sailors who developed cancer and other serious health conditions allege radiation exposures while serving on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi may be the cause. There is no objective evidence that the sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi experienced radiation exposures that would result in an increase in the expected number of radiogenic diseases over time. The estimated radiation doses for all individuals in the Operation Tomodachi registry, including sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN, were very small and well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions. A detailed explanation of the data collection, methodologies, analyses, and conclusions are included in the enclosed report.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-fukushima-radiation-class-action Judge Tosses Fukushima Radiation Class Action] Bianca Bruno; Courthouse News Service; 4 Mar 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Hundreds of American sailors who filed two class actions claiming to have suffered physical abnormalities, cancer and death stemming from exposure to radiation while on a humanitarian mission to Fukushima, Japan in 2011 were dealt a blow Monday when their cases were dismissed, paving the way for their claims to be brought in Japan.<br />
<br />
U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino found in a “close call” in two separate orders, class actions brought against Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, and General Electric, should be dismissed without prejudice so the service members’ claims could be brought in Japan if they choose to revive them.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== [[Chris Busby]] ===<br />
Busby has written for the Russian state propaganda outlet RT.com: [https://www.rt.com/op-edge/335362-fukushima-nuclear-japan-bbc/ Is Fukushima's nuclear nightmare over? Don’t count on it] Chris Busby; RT; 12 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
and for [[The Ecologist]]: <br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2987398/no_matter_what_bbc_says_fukushima_disaster_is_killing_people.html No matter what BBC says: Fukushima disaster is killing people] Chris Busby; The Ecologist; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Sherman & Mangano ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION?] Joseph J. Mangano, Janette D. Sherman; International Journal of Health Services; 2012<br />
{{Quote|The multiple nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima plants beginning on March 11, 2011, are releasing large amounts of airborne radioactivity that has spread throughout Japan and to other nations; thus, studies of contamination and health hazards are merited. In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns. Some samples of radioactivity in precipitation, air, water, and milk, taken by the U.S. government, showed levels hundreds of times above normal; however, the small number of samples prohibits any credible analysis of temporal trends and spatial comparisons. U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80 percent, compared with a previous 8.37 percent decrease. Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected. These preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986, which approximated final figures.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Rebuttals of Sherman & Mangano ====<br />
<br />
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study] Michael Moyer; Scientific American; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
In June [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ I wrote about] a claim that babies in the U.S. were dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation. A close look at the accusation revealed that the data used by the authors to make the argument showed no such thing. "That data is publicly available," I wrote, "and a check reveals that [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths]." The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.<br />
<br />
Now the authors have published a revised study ([http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf PDF]) in the [http://www.baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services]. A press release published to herald the article warns, "[http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease111219FukushimaReactorFallout.html 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Fallout]." This is an alarming accusation. Let's see how the authors defend it.<br />
<br />
First, the authors assert: "In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns." They provide no evidence for this assertion, no citation to back up their facts. The authors then note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitored radioactivity in milk, water and air in the weeks and months following the disaster. Ah, here must be the data, the careful reader hopes. Alas, "the number of samples for which the EPA was able to detect measurable concentrations of radioactivity is relatively few," the authors write. They then conclude, with evident disappointment, that "clearly, the 2011 EPA reports cannot be used with confidence for any comprehensive assessment of temporal trends and spatial patterns of U.S. environmental radiation levels originating in Japan." In other words, the EPA didn't find evidence for the plume that our entire argument depends on, so "clearly" we can't trust the agency's data.<br />
<br />
Yet even if there isn't evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: "U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks....Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths." In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.<br />
<br />
To unpack a little more, the authors take mortality figures from the [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports]. I talk a little about these reports in my [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ original piece]. Suffice it to say that they are an incomplete record of deaths in the U.S. (as the authors acknowledge). The authors draw a hard line at the week of March 20, 2011, the 12th week of the year. They sum up all deaths around the country for both the 14 weeks preceding and the 14 weeks following March 20, 2011. They do the same for 2010. They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010. The 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2011 (presumably before the radiation plume arrived and spread across the land) include only 2.34 percent more dead people than the 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2010. Since the CDC only reports on about 23.5 percent of all deaths, the authors claim, they helpfully multiply the supposed "excess" by 1/0.235 to arrive at the final number of 13,893 deaths.<br />
<br />
No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are [http://www.radiation.org/ anti-nuclear activists] unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the "excess" deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.<br />
<br />
The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-health-risks-scrutin radiation from Fukushima is dangerous], and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coming-clean-about-nuclear-power serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play] in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.<br />
<br />
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.<br />
<br />
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)<br />
<br />
Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/2011/12/20/fukushima-alarmist-claim-obscure-medical-journal-proceed-caution Fukushima: Alarmist Claim? Obscure Medical Journal? Proceed With Caution] Barbara Feder Ostrov; University of Southern California Center for Health Journalism blog; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''UPDATE: Click [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n here] for a response from International Journal of Health Services Editor-in-Chief Vicente Navarro.'''<br />
<br />
The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy press release] trumpeted a startling claim: researchers had linked radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster to 14,000 deaths in the United States, with infants hardest hit.<br />
<br />
"This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima," the press release bragged in announcing the study's publication today. The press release, which compared the disaster's impact to Chernobyl, appeared via PR Newswire on mainstream news sites, including the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy Sacramento Bee] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://news.yahoo.com/medical-journal-article-14-000-u-deaths-tied-160111170.html Yahoo! News].<br />
<br />
Casual readers who didn't realize this was only a press release could be forgiven for thinking this was a spit-out-your-coffee story. But with a little online research and guidance from veteran health journalists [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer], I quickly learned that there's a lot less to [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,6,13;journal,1,165;browsepublicationsresults,7,24; this study] and to the medical journal that published it. Read on for their advice on what journalists can learn from this episode.<br />
<br />
Normally, reporters are supposed to feel better about research that's been peer-reviewed before publication in a scientific journal. But the claims of the press release were just so outlandish, warning bells went off.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, the authors, Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, published a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/is-the-increase-in-baby-deaths-in-the-us-a-result-of-fukushima-fallout/ version of this study] in the political newsletter Counterpunch, where it was quickly criticized. The critics charged that the authors [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2011/06/21/counterpunch-verifies-infant-mortality-fraud-but-seems-to-create-one-themselves/ had cherry-picked federal data on infant deaths] so they would spike around the time of the Fukushima disaster. Passions over nuclear safety further muddied the debate: both researchers and some critics had activist baggage, with the researchers characterized as anti-nuke and the critics as pro-nuke.<br />
<br />
As Scientific American's Michael Moyer [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ writes]: "The authors appeared to start from a conclusion-babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation-and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims."<br />
<br />
So how did such a seemingly flawed study wind up in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
I researched the journal, the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services], and its editor, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1041/Navarro/Vicente Vicente Navarro]. Navarro, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's prestigious school of public health, looked legit, but the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0020-7314_International_Journal_of_Health_Services journal's "impact factor"] (a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ measure of a research journal's credibility and influence]) was less impressive. (I emailed and called Navarro for comment; I'll [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n update this post] if I hear back from him.)<br />
<br />
I asked [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky], executive editor of Reuters Health and co-founder of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Retraction Watch] blog, and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.healthnewsreview.org/ Health News Review] founder [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer]: how can journalists better evaluate when to cover (and more importantly, when not to cover) the medical research stories that cross their desks?<br />
<br />
Their consensus: just because a study's peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's credible. And evaluating a journal's impact factor can be helpful, but it's not sufficient.<br />
<br />
Here's what Oransky had to say:<br />
<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
I do use impact factor to judge journals, while accepting that it's an imperfect measure that is used in all sorts of inappropriate ways (and, for the sake of full disclosure, is a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ Thomson Scientific product], as in Thomson Reuters). I find it helpful to rank journals within a particular specialty. It's not the only metric I use to figure out what to cover, but if I'm looking at a field with dozens or even more than 100 journals, it's a good first-pass filter. There's competition to publish in journals, which means high-impact journals have much lower acceptance rates. And if citations are any measure at all of whether journals are read, then they're obviously read more, too.<br />
<br />
I looked up the journal in question, and it's actually ranked 45th out of 58 in the Health Policy and Services category (in the social sciences rankings) and 59th out of 72 in the Health Care Sciences & Services category (in the science rankings).<br />
<br />
As to how this could get published in a peer-reviewed journal, well, not all peer review is created equal. Higher-ranked journals tend to have more thorough peer review. (They also, perhaps not surprisingly, have [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://bjoern.brembs.net/comment-n811.html higher rates of retractions]. Whether that's because people push the envelope to publish in them, or there are more eyeballs on them, or there's some other reason, is unclear. But there's no evidence that it's because their peer review is less thorough.)<br />
<br />
Finally, I'd refer readers to this [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html great primer on peer review] by Maggie Koerth-Baker.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Gary Schwitzer also provided these helpful tips for journalists:<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
1. Brush up on the writings of [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ John Ioannidis], who has written a great deal in recent years about the flaws in published research.<br />
<br />
2. Journalists who live on a steady diet of journal articles almost by definition promote a rose-colored view of progress in research if they don't grasp and convey the publication bias in many journals for positive findings. Negative or null findings may not be viewed as sexy enough. Or they may be squelched prior to submission. While perhaps not a factor in this one case, it nonetheless drives home the point to journalists about the need to critically evaluate studies.<br />
<br />
3. In this case, a journalist would be well-served by a friendly local biostatistician's review.<br />
<br />
4. It is always more helpful to focus on the quality of the study rather than the impact factor of the journal or the reputation of the researcher (for reasons Ivan articulated). However, these are legitimate questions to ask any published researcher: "Why did you choose to submit your work to that journal? Did you submit it elsewhere and was it rejected? If so, what feedback did you get from the peer reviewers?"<br />
}}<br />
'''Related Posts:'''<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n Fukushima Fallout and Infant Deaths: International Journal of Health Services' Vicente Navarro Responds]<br />
}}<br />
<br />
In a post [http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/ JOSEPH MANGANO NEVER STOPS, AND HE NEVER GETS IT RIGHT] on the "Nuclear Power Yes Please blog" on 29 Aug 2012, "LANTZELOT" writes:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* '''Mangano claims that the total number of deaths in Japan rose with 4.8% during 2011, compared with the "normal" increase of 1.5%.''' There is no "normal" increase of 1.5%, though for the last 20 years the average increase in the number of deaths (due to an ageing population and decreasing birth rate) has been about 2%. For individual years the increase varies drastically, being above 4% six times since 1990. Thus the 4.8% increase during 2011 is not very spectacular.<br />
<br />
* '''Out of the about 1.2 million Japanese that die every year the 4.8% increase means an excess of 57,900 deaths compared with 2010. When subtracting the victims of the tsunami and earthquake there is still an excess of 38,700 deaths with no obvious cause.''' Mangano fails to mention that also in 2010 there was an "excess" of more than 55,000 deaths, compared with the year before. Yes, that is 55,000 excess deaths without a tsunami, without the release of radioactivity, and without alarmistic claims by Mangano.<br />
<br />
* '''"38,700 deaths with no obvious cause", or "38,700 additional unexplained deaths" is repeated, implying that maybe Fukushima did it.''' The majority of the deaths are not unexplained, they are classified into about 130 different categories, carefully filed by the MHLW. There is however a category called "Other causes" which include those deaths that can not be classified according to the other categories. For 2011 this category has about 5,000 deaths, which may still sound alarming. It should be noted that this is only 150 more than for 2010, and the variation between different years may be much larger than that. Furthermore, those deaths from "other causes" are not mysterious or due to some death ray directly from Fukushima, they just do not fit into any of the other 130 categories.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{refs}}<br />
<br />
=== William T. Vollmann - No Immediate Danger ===<br />
<br />
[http://progressandperil.com/2018/04/09/the-ideology-of-fear-william-t-vollman-and-nuclear-power/ The Ideology of Fear: William T. Vollmann and Nuclear Power] Will Boisvert; Progress and Peril; 9 Apr 2018<br />
: Review of No Immediate Danger: Volume One of Carbon Ideologies<br />
<br />
=== Debunking ===<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/ Are Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Really Over?] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 2 Sep 2013<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/ More Fukushima Scaremongering Debunked] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 28 Oct 2013<br />
: "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima"<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/11/25/dire-warnings-and-melting-starfish-fukushima-fear/ Dire Warnings and Melting Starfish: Fukushima Fearmongering, Volume 3] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 25 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: The ocean is broken. <br />
* CLAIM: David Suzuki's Dire Warning. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima is as bad as 14,000 Hiroshima bombs.<br />
* CLAIM: The scary radiation map. <br />
* CLAIM: Cancer rates are spiking in Fukushima's children. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima radiation is the cause of an epidemic of melting sea stars. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/20/fukushima-fear-vol-4/ Fukushima Fear, Vol. 4: More Nonsense Than You Can Shake a Giant Squid At] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 20 Jan 2014<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: OMG! A giant squid beached itself in Santa Monica! Fukushima! <br />
* CLAIM: Two underground nuclear explosions rocked the Fukushima site on New Year's Eve, forcing Russia's Ministry of Defense to go on high alert — and causing TEPCO to quietly admit that Reactor 3 was melting down. GAME OVER!!! <br />
* CLAIM: Radioactive steam was seen pouring off Reactor 3, meaning it's in the middle of a meltdown. <br />
* CLAIM: A dude with a Geiger counter went to a California beach and found radiation levels off the charts! Evacuate the west coast at once!<br />
* CLAIM: 98% of the Pacific sea floor is covered in dead creatures nuked by Fukushima.<br />
* CLAIM: A mass die-off of sardines in the Pacific is because of Fukushima radiation. <br />
* CLAIM: California scientists are going to start monitoring kelp forests, because they know Fukushima radiation is killing us all!<br />
* CLAIM: The US government bought 14 million potassium iodide doses to protect the wealthy elite from radiation! APOCALYPSE AHOY!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.earthtouchnews.com/oceans/oceans/heres-your-go-to-source-for-debunking-all-the-fukushima-fables Here's your go-to source for debunking all the Fukushima fables] Sarah Keartes; Earth Touch News; 25 Feb 2016<br />
{{Quote|From "mutant" eels to fish "tumours", viral stories linking the Fukushima nuclear disaster to seemingly strange marine events are probably crowding your news feed. And each time one pops up, radiation-related panic spirals ensue.}}<br />
<br />
[https://m.facebook.com/1561335957440623/photos/a.1561349920772560.1073741827.1561335957440623/1681156132125271/?type=3&source=54 what you get searching Google images for Fukushima] Refutations to Anti-Nuclear Memes; facebook<br />
<br />
== Onagawa ==<br />
[http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 Onagawa: The Japanese nuclear power plant that didn’t melt down on 3/11]<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160403020718/http://energyforhumanity.org/nuclear/nuclear-is-normal-when-your-local-reactor-is-the-safest-place-in-the-world/ Nuclear is Normal: When Your Local Reactor is the Safest Place in the World] Energy For Humanity (via Internet Archive Wayback Machine); 6 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
1993. The second boiling water reactor at the Tōhoku Electric Co’s Onagawa nuclear station is completed after a three and a half year build, costing $2.64 billion in today’s US dollars. The site is already elevated and fortified beyond historical tsunami indications, the legacy of a corporate safety culture instilled by vice president Yanosuke Hirai. This diligence pervaded and persisted through the company, driving safety focus and disaster preparedness. A further unit is later constructed beside Onagawa-2. The plant operates well above average Japanese availability factor.<br />
<br />
The response of Onagawa to the natural disasters in 2011 has been detailed in the literature by senior personnel, as well as by an independent journalist. All three reactors shut down automatically, as designed, when the quake struck. Workers were quick to organise and get to work ensuring the plant’s safety. Backup power sytems including diesel generators and offsite power lines were safe from the waves and continued to cool the decay heat within the reactor cores. Tsunami damage was limited to a non-safety switchgear fire and auxiliary building flooding.<br />
<br />
The safety and electricity at the plant in the midst of unprecedented devastation drew local survivors. Hundreds of people were housed in Onagawa’s gymnasium for three months and provided with warmth and supplies.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Cleanup ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ Clearing the Radioactive Rubble Heap That Was Fukushima Daiichi, 7 Years On] Tim Hornyak; Scientific American; 9 Mar 2018<br />
: The water is tainted, the wreckage is dangerous, and disposing of it will be a prolonged, complex and costly process</div>Sisussmanhttp://scienceforsustainability.org/w/index.php?title=Fukushima&diff=5485Fukushima2022-07-19T12:11:50Z<p>Sisussman: /* UNSCEAR */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: 1]]<br />
[[Category: Nuclear energy]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-nuclear]]<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
[https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident Fukushima nuclear accident] J.M.K.C. Donev et al.; University of Calgary Energy Education; 3 Sep 2015<br />
<br />
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a19871/fukushima-five-years-later/ Five Years Later, Cutting Through the Fukushima Myths] Andrew Karam; Popular Mechanics; 11 Mar 2016<br />
:Radiation expert Andrew Karam, who covered the disaster for Popular Mechanics in 2011 and later traveled to study the site, explains everything you need to know about Fukushima's legacy and danger five years later.<br />
<br />
: March 11, 2011 was a day of unimaginable tragedy in northern Japan, a tragedy exacerbated by the reactor meltdowns and release of contamination. But the nuclear part of this horrible day was, if the longest-lasting, certainly the least lethal event. Yet it's the part that still engenders so much fear. With the fifth anniversary of the Fukushima accident upon us this month, let's take a look at where things stand today with recovering from this calamity, and what might be happening next.<br />
<br />
[https://mothersfornuclear.org/our-thoughts/2018/3/11/fukushima-perspectivefromareactoroperatoron3/11-7yearslater Fukushima: Perspective from a Reactor Operator on 3/11 Seven Years Later] Heather; Mothers for Nuclear; 10 Mar 2018<br />
<br />
[https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/was-fallout-from-fukushima-exaggerated What was the fallout from Fukushima?] Fred Pearce; The Observer; 3 Jun 2018<br />
: Shunichi Yamashita knows a lot of about the health effects of radiation. But he is a pariah in his home country of Japan, because he insists on telling those evacuated after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident that the hazards are much less than they suppose. Could he be right?<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-glass-beads-may-tell-the-terrible-tale-of-how-the-fukushima-meltdown-unfolded Radioactive Glass Beads May Tell the Terrible Tale of How the Fukushima Meltdown Unfolded] Andrea Thompson; Scientific American; 11 Mar 2019<br />
: The microscopic particles unleashed by the plant’s explosions are also a potential environmental and health concern<br />
<br />
== Radioactivity and radiation effects ==<br />
[http://new.atmc.jp/ Radioactivity monitoring around Fukushima]<br />
: graphics and tables from atmc.jp<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
=== Politicisation and political effects ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html#disqus_thread The world has forgotten the real victims of Fukushima] Michael Hanlon; Daily Telegraph; 21 Feb 2012<br />
: A natural disaster that cost the lives of thousands of people was ignored in favour of a nuclear 'disaster’ that never was, argues Michael Hanlon.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17287740 Global fallout: Did Fukushima scupper nuclear power?] Richard Black, Environment correspondent; BBC News; <br />
10 Mar 2012<br />
<br />
== Health effects ==<br />
=== WHO ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/health-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident Health consequences of Fukushima nuclear accident] WHO news Room; 10 March 2016 <br />
{{Quote|<br />
* What happened?<br />
* What were the main radionuclides to which people were exposed?<br />
* What levels of radiation have people been exposed to?<br />
* What were the main public health consequences of the disaster?<br />
* What are the health implications of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (FDNPS) nuclear accident?<br />
* Is there a risk of radiation-induced thyroid cancer among children of Fukushima prefecture?<br />
* Is there any risk from radioactive food contamination in Japan today?<br />
* What are the public health lessons learned from the response to Fukushima?<br />
* What was WHO response?<br />
* What is being done to mitigate the public health impact of the Fukushima accident?<br />
}}<br />
: + links to other documents<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/ Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks] World Health Organisation; 28 Feb 2013<br />
{{Quote|A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/ FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On] World Health Organisation<br />
<br />
=== UNSCEAR ===<br />
[https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html "The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power station accident / UNSCEAR's assessments of levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great East-Japan earthquake and tsunami"] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation <br />
<br />
{{qq|On 11 March 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered major damage from the failure of equipment after the magnitude 9.0 great east-Japan earthquake and subsequent tsunami. It was the largest civilian nuclear accident since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Radioactive material was released from the damaged plant and tens of thousands of people were evacuated.<br />
<br />
In May 2011, the Committee embarked upon a two-year assessment of the levels and effects of radiation exposure from the accident. It reported its findings to the General Assembly in October 2013 ( A/68/46), and a detailed publication titled 'Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami' with the supporting scientific data and evaluation was issued online on 2 April 2014 [ English] [ Japanese].<br />
<br />
The main focus of the UNSCEAR 2013 Report was on assessing the exposure to radiation of various groups of the population, and the implied effects in terms of radiation-induced risks for human health and the environment. The population groups considered included residents of the Fukushima Prefecture and other prefectures in Japan; and workers, contractors and others who were engaged in the emergency work at or around the accident site. The environmental assessment addressed marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== Geraldine Thomas ===<br />
[http://www.clinicaloncologyonline.net/issue/S0936-6555(16)X0003-9 Fukushima - Five Years On] Clinical Oncology; Edited by Gerry Thomas; Apr 2016<br />
: edition of journal devoted to studies of Fukushima<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761136 Is Fukushima's exclusion zone doing more harm than radiation?] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes; BBC; 10 Mar 2016<br />
: includes [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35761141 interview with Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College]<br />
<br />
=== Others ===<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster] Wikipedia<br />
: There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster dispute about the neutrality of this article]<br />
<br />
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601011/the-effects-of-fukushima-linger-after-five-years-but-not-from-radiation/ The Effects of Fukushima Linger After Five Years - But Not From Radiation] Richard Martin; MIT Technology Review; 10 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Norwegian study ===<br />
[http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-6605.pdf Global transport of Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to Asia, North America and Europe. Estimated doses and expected health effects] Nikolaos Evangeliou, Andreas Stohl, Yves Balkanski; Geophysical Research Abstracts; 2017<br />
: An attempt to assess exposure of the population and the environment showed that the effective dose from gamma irradiation during the first 3 months was estimated between 1−5 mSv in Fukushima and the neighbouring prefectures. In the rest of Japan, the respective doses were found to be less than 0.5 mSv, whereas in the rest of the world it was less than 0.1 mSv. Such doses are equivalent with the obtained dose from a simple X-ray; for the highly contaminated regions, they are close to the dose limit for exposure due to radon inhalation (10 mSv). The calculated dose rates from radiocesium exposure on reference organisms ranged from 0.03 to 0.18 µGy h−1, which are 2 orders of magnitude below the screening dose limit (10 µGy h−1) that could result in obvious effects on the population. However, monitoring data have shown that much higher dose rates were committed to organisms raising ecological risk for small mammals and reptiles in terms of cytogenetic damage and reproduction.<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencealert.com/fukushima-s-meltdown-gave-you-about-100-bananas-worth-of-radiation Fukushima's Meltdown Gave Every Human on Earth 1,000 Bananas' Worth of Radiation] MIKE MCRAE; Science Alert; 8 MAY 2017<br />
: Assuming you've been living on Earth since the nuclear reactor at Fukushima in Japan was struck by a tsunami in March 2011, there's a good chance you copped about 1,000 bananas' worth of radiation over the past six years as a result of the meltdown.<br />
<br />
: That's what the Norwegian Institute for Air Research calculated, based on how far two radioactive isotopes of caesium have spread, putting the dosage for most people outside Japan at less than 0.1 millisievert – also equivalent to receiving one X-ray.<br />
<br />
: Of course, if you happened to be a little closer to the event – say, in Japan – the average dose over the few years that followed was closer to 0.5 millisieverts, which isn't even close to what you'd get if you underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan in hospital.<br />
<br />
=== Thyroid cancer and effects of screening ===<br />
<br />
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/pdf/thy.2017.0283.pdf Lessons from Fukushima: Latest Findings of Thyroid Cancer After the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident] Shunichi Yamashita, Shinichi Suzuki, Satoru Suzuki, Hiroki Shimura, Vladimir Saenko<br />
: The accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused a biased risk perception, which is now a pressing social problem similar to that observed after Chernobyl. Consequently, the association between radiation and the thyroid has reminded people of the reiteration of Chernobyl and brought about a simplistic way of assuming that the high incidence of thyroid cancers has been caused by radiation exposure. This, in turn, has further augmented excessive anxiety, worries, and wrong interpretations of the results of elaborate large-scale ultrasound thyroid screening, having a psychological and mental impact on those exposed to radiation.<br />
<br />
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1022.full Epidemic of fear] Dennis Normile; Science; 4 Mar 2016 ''(paywalled)''<br />
<br />
[https://www.wired.com/2016/03/cancer-rates-spiked-fukushima-dont-blame-radiation/ CANCER RATES SPIKED AFTER FUKUSHIMA. BUT DON'T BLAME RADIATION] Sarah Fallon; Wired; 9 Mar 2016<br />
: Now, some people actually might have had to worry about radioactive iodine being sucked up into their thyroids: the families (especially kids) living near the Fukushima Daiichi plant. And indeed, kids in the region were screened for thyroid cancer in the years following the disaster. A piece in Science last week walks through the history of this screening, and the lessons it offers are instructive—for any human being who ever requires medical care.<br />
<br />
: On its face, as Dennis Normile describes, the initial finding from screenings in Japan was super alarming. Almost half (half!) of those screened had nodules or cysts (which can potentially be or become cancerous) on their thyroids.<br />
<br />
: Nuts, right? And a Japanese epidemiologist named Toshihide Tsuda published a paper in 2015 saying that the rate of thyroid cancer in those Fukushima kids was more than 600 per million—way higher than the 1 to 3 cases per million kids that you would expect. But! As Normile writes, that comparison wasn’t quite fair. The Fukushima survey used advanced ultrasound devices that can detect tiny growths, while the older data came from plain old clinical exams. Oops. You have an apples to oranges thing going on there, in terms of your diagnostic instruments.<br />
<br />
: Indeed, when other scientists screened kids elsewhere in Japan using the fancy ultrasound devices, rates of cancer were anywhere from 300 to 1,300 per million. What the ultrasound devices find, then, is a whole lot of turtles.<br />
<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Thyroid_screening_program Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster -- Thyroid screening program] Wikipedia<br />
<br />
== Consequences of evacuation ==<br />
[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/14/national/fukushima-evacuations-were-not-worth-the-money-study-says/ Fukushima evacuations were not worth the money, study says] WILLIAM HOLLINGWORTH; The Japan Times; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
: The costs of evacuating residents from near the Fukushima No. 1 plant and the dislocation the people experienced were greater than their expected gain in longevity, a British study has found.<br />
<br />
: The researchers found that at best evacuees could expect to live eight months longer, but that some might gain only one extra day of life. They said this does not warrant ripping people from their homes and communities.<br />
<br />
: The team of experts from four British universities developed a series of tests to examine the relocations after the Fukushima crisis and earlier Chernobyl disaster in 1986.<br />
<br />
: After a three-year study, the academics have concluded that Japan “overreacted” by relocating 160,000 residents of Fukushima Prefecture, even though radioactive material fell on more than 30,000 sq. km of territory.<br />
<br />
: “We judged that no one should have been relocated in Fukushima, and it could be argued this was a knee-jerk reaction,” said Philip Thomas, a professor of risk management at Bristol University. “It did more harm than good. An awful lot of disruption has been caused However, this is with hindsight and we are not blaming the authorities.”<br />
<br />
: The team used a wide range of economic and actuarial data, as well as information from the United Nations and the Japanese government.<br />
<br />
=== Stress and mental health effects ===<br />
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk]<br />
(NY Times; 21 Sep 2015)<br />
{{Quote|<br />
No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.<br />
<br />
But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/20/national/post-quake-illnesses-kill-more-in-fukushima-than-2011-disaster Fukushima stress deaths top 3/11 toll] Japan Times; 20 Feb 2014<br />
{{Quote|FUKUSHIMA – Stress and other illnesses related to the 2011 quake and tsunami had killed 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture as of Wednesday, outnumbering the 1,607 whose deaths were directly tied to disaster-caused injuries, according to data compiled by the prefecture and local police.<br />
<br />
A prefectural official said many people “have undergone drastic changes in their lives and are still unable to map out their future plans, such as homecoming, causing increased stress on them.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/claire-leppold/fukushima-and-the-art-of-knowing-en_b_10537440.html Fukushima and the Art of Knowing] Clare Leppold; Huffington Post; 18 Jun 2016<br />
{{Quote|When trying to evacuate, some were turned away from the homes of their families because radiation was misunderstood as contagious. I am told about the parents of young men, opposing their choice to marry a woman from Fukushima because it is assumed that she will not be able to bear healthy children. Some children themselves believe they will never be able to have healthy offspring in the future, because of what they have heard.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.facebook.com/Thoughtscapism/posts/904443906340889?comment_id=904574889661124&reply_comment_id=905119912939955&notif_t=share_reply People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes] Thoughtscapism; Facebook; 11 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|This is madness! People should be given the freedom to go back to their homes - the risk from radiation is way below what nuclear plant staff are safely allowed to be exposed to (20 mSv/year). Some of my Finnish countrymen live with the natural radiation of 7 milliSieverts. There's a brazil beach famed for it's 'healing sands', with radiation levels of 175 mSv per year. Spots of 12 mSv/year in the Fukushima area are just *fine*.<br />
<br />
"The radiation has not been the disaster. It's our response to the radiation, our fear that we've projected on to others, to say this is really dangerous. It isn't really dangerous and there are plenty of places in the world where you would live with background radiation of at least this level."<br />
<br />
" If I were to stand outside here for 12 hours a day, every day of the year, I would receive an annual extra dose of radiation of around 13 millisieverts." <br />
<br />
"...[this is] more than ten times above what the Japanese government has declared "safe" for people to return."<br />
<br />
"There are places in Cornwall in the UK where background radiation levels reach 8 millisieverts a year.<br />
<br />
The world's highest background radiation rate is found in the city of Ramsar in Iran, which has the astonishing rate of 250 millisieverts a year."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Consequences of nuclear shutdown ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-down-japans-nuclear-plants-after-fukushima-was-a-bad-idea/ Shutting Down All Of Japan’s Nuclear Plants After Fukushima Was A Bad Idea] James Conca; Forbes; 31 Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
By now, more Japanese have died from the closing of Japan's nuclear power plants following the 2011 Tohoku quake than from the tsunami and the earthquake combined, which was about 20,000 people.<br />
<br />
Of course, no one has died from any radiation released from the reactor, and no one ever will. There just wasn’t enough dose to anyone.<br />
<br />
These conclusions are now echoed across the scientific and medical communities. The [http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf latest study], from Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida and Marcella Veronesi, discusses how after [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Fukushima_nuclear_accident the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident], when all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, there was a significant increase in electricity prices and in public mortality.<br />
<br />
The increase in price led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. An increase in mortality also occurred from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, which causes upper respiratory effects. The estimate of these combined mortalities outnumbers the mortality from the tsunami and earthquake themselves, suggesting that the knee-jerk decision to cease nuclear production was a very bad idea.<br />
<br />
The immediate urge to shut down all Japanese nuclear reactors after the event was understandable, but Japan only had 15 reactors out of 54 that were at risk of tsunamis. Shutting down these reactors was reasonable in order to determine how to make them more resistant to this particular threat.<br />
<br />
The other reactors not at risk should have continued operating during the safety review following the accident, during formation of the new nuclear regulatory authority, and during the development and implementation of the new safety measures.<br />
<br />
...<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident] Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida, Marcella Veronesi; IZA Institute of Labor Economics; Oct 2019<br />
{{Quote|This paper provides a large scale, empirical evaluation of unintended effects from invoking the precautionary principle after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. After the accident, all nuclear power stations ceased operation and nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels, causing an exogenous increase in electricity prices. This increase led to a reduction in energy consumption, which caused an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increase in mortality from higher electricity prices outnumbers the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting the decision to cease nuclear production has contributed to more deaths than the accident itself.}}<br />
<br />
== Wildlife ==<br />
<br />
"Study shows animal life thriving around Fukushima" by Vicky L. Sutton-Jackson, 6 Jan 2020, [https://news.uga.edu/animal-life-thriving-around-fukushima/ University of Georgia]<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Nearly a decade after the nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan, researchers from the University of Georgia have found that wildlife populations are abundant in areas void of human life.<br />
<br />
The camera study, published in the Journal of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, reports that over 267,000 wildlife photos recorded more than 20 species, including wild boar, Japanese hare, macaques, pheasant, fox and the raccoon dog—a relative of the fox—in various areas of the landscape.<br />
<br />
UGA wildlife biologist James Beasley said speculation and questions have come from both the scientific community and the general public about the status of wildlife years after a nuclear accident like those in Chernobyl and Fukushima.<br />
<br />
This recent study, in addition to the team’s research in Chernobyl, provides answers to the questions.<br />
<br />
“Our results represent the first evidence that numerous species of wildlife are now abundant throughout the Fukushima Evacuation Zone, despite the presence of radiological contamination,” said Beasley, associate professor at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources.<br />
<br />
Species that are often in conflict with humans, particularly wild boar, were predominantly captured on camera in human-evacuated areas or zones, according to Beasley.<br />
<br />
“This suggests these species have increased in abundance following the evacuation of people.”<br />
}}<br />
<br />
"Rewilding of Fukushima's human evacuation zone" by Phillip C Lyons, Kei Okuda, Matthew T Hamilton, Thomas G Hinton, James C Beasley; 6 Jan 2020 [https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2149 esa journals]<br />
{{Quote|'''Abstract'''<br />
<br />
There is substantial interest in understanding the ecological impacts of the nuclear accidents at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants. However, population‐level data for large mammals have been limited, and there remains much speculation regarding the status of wildlife species in these areas. Using a network of remote cameras placed along a gradient of radiological contamination and human presence, we collected data on population‐level impacts to wildlife (that is, abundance and occupancy patterns) following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. We found no evidence of population‐level impacts in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals or gallinaceous birds, and show several species were most abundant in human‐evacuated areas, despite the presence of radiological contamination. These data provide unique evidence of the natural rewilding of the Fukushima landscape following human abandonment, and suggest that if any effects of radiological exposure in mid‐ to large‐sized mammals in the Fukushima Exclusion Zone exist, they occur at individual or molecular scales, and do not appear to manifest in population‐level responses.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Marine effects ==<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2012/06/detectable-but-not-hazardous-radioactive-marine-life-of-fukushima/ Detectable but not hazardous: radioactive marine life of Fukushima] Miriam Goldstein; Deep Sea News; 1 Jun 2012<br />
<br />
[http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/fukushima-radiation Fukushima Radiation] Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution<br />
{{Quote| Scientists continue to study the effects of radioactive contaminants on the marine environment following the earthquake, tsunamis, and resulting radiation leads from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan.}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/ True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster] Dr Martini; Deep Sea News; 28 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
On March 11th, 2011 the Tōhoku earthquake and resulting tsunami wreaked havoc on Japan. It also resulted in the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl when the tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere and ocean, contaminating groundwater, soil and seawater which effectively closed local Japanese fisheries.<br />
<br />
Rather unfortunately, it has also led to some wild speculation on the widespread dangers of Fukushima radiation on the internet. <br />
}}<br />
: ''contains Simpsons guide to radiation and debunks of some scare stories''<br />
<br />
== Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
[http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/08/unimaginable-levels-radiation-fukushima-pacific-ocean-leaks Radiation at Japan's Fukushima Reactor Is Now at 'Unimaginable' Levels] Fox News; 8 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
[[file:NOAA tsunami wave height map.jpg | 300px | right | thumb | NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, with key showing mapping of colours to wave height'']]<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170223024958/http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/02a91dbeabeb6f9cebb3de75e65dd275 Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It's Going To Get Worse)] zerohedge.com; 21 Feb 2017 ''(via Internet Archive)''<br />
{{Quote|<br />
''Story using the NOAA tsunami wave height graphic, which hasn't even cropped out the legend showing height mapping to colours''<br />
<br />
''Floats the conspiracy theory that General Electric has managed to suppress reporting on Fukushima for last 5 years''<br />
<br />
''Claims that'' "Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs" ''and that'' "the US and Canadian governments have banned their citizens from talking about Fukushima so “people don’t panic.”" ''(citing a [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468 2012 BBC News report] on the Harper government's media protocol)''<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp Oh, Fukushima] Snopes<br />
{{Quote|A chart purportedly showing radioactive water seeping into the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear plant actually depicts something else.}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/15/whats-really-going-on-at-fukushima/ What’s Really Going on at Fukushima?] ROBERT HUNZIKER; Counterpunch; 15 Jun 2015<br />
: ''Quotes Helen Caldicott. Also includes claims about Chernobyl, including 1 million deaths.''<br />
<br />
[http://www.realfarmacy.com/whales-die-pacific-ocean-scientists-suspect-fukushima/ Whales Continue to Die Off in Pacific Ocean: Scientists Suspect Fukushima Radiation at Fault] RealFarmacy<br />
<br />
=== USS Ronald Reagan ===<br />
[https://www.thenation.com/article/seven-years-on-sailors-exposed-to-fukushima-radiation-seek-their-day-in-court/ 7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court] Gregg Levine; The Nation; 9 Mar 2018<br />
{{Quote|Special investigation: US military personnel are sick and dying, and want the nuclear plant’s designers and owners to take responsibility.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/06/23/court-sailors-can-sue-in-us-over-japanese-nuclear-disaster/ Court: Sailors can sue in US over Japanese nuclear disaster] The Associated Press; Navy Times; 22 June 2017<br />
{{Quote|SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court says members of the U.S. Navy can pursue their lawsuit in a U.S. court alleging radiation exposure from Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the sailors for now don't have to make their legal claims in Japan. Their lawsuit accuses Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the Japanese government of conspiring to keep secret the extent of the radiation leak following a 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed thousands of people. The plaintiffs arrived off the coast of Fukushima aboard the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other vessels to provide humanitarian aid a day after the quake. }}<br />
<br />
[https://www.health.mil/Reference-Center/Reports/2014/06/19/Radiation-Exposure-Report Letter from US DoD re Radiation Exposure on USS Ronald Regan]<br />
{{Quote|Some sailors who developed cancer and other serious health conditions allege radiation exposures while serving on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi may be the cause. There is no objective evidence that the sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN during Operation Tomodachi experienced radiation exposures that would result in an increase in the expected number of radiogenic diseases over time. The estimated radiation doses for all individuals in the Operation Tomodachi registry, including sailors on the USS RONALD REAGAN, were very small and well below levels associated with adverse medical conditions. A detailed explanation of the data collection, methodologies, analyses, and conclusions are included in the enclosed report.}}<br />
<br />
[https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-fukushima-radiation-class-action Judge Tosses Fukushima Radiation Class Action] Bianca Bruno; Courthouse News Service; 4 Mar 2019<br />
{{Quote|<br />
Hundreds of American sailors who filed two class actions claiming to have suffered physical abnormalities, cancer and death stemming from exposure to radiation while on a humanitarian mission to Fukushima, Japan in 2011 were dealt a blow Monday when their cases were dismissed, paving the way for their claims to be brought in Japan.<br />
<br />
U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino found in a “close call” in two separate orders, class actions brought against Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, and General Electric, should be dismissed without prejudice so the service members’ claims could be brought in Japan if they choose to revive them.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
=== [[Chris Busby]] ===<br />
Busby has written for the Russian state propaganda outlet RT.com: [https://www.rt.com/op-edge/335362-fukushima-nuclear-japan-bbc/ Is Fukushima's nuclear nightmare over? Don’t count on it] Chris Busby; RT; 12 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
and for [[The Ecologist]]: <br />
[http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2987398/no_matter_what_bbc_says_fukushima_disaster_is_killing_people.html No matter what BBC says: Fukushima disaster is killing people] Chris Busby; The Ecologist; 14 Mar 2016<br />
<br />
=== Sherman & Mangano ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION?] Joseph J. Mangano, Janette D. Sherman; International Journal of Health Services; 2012<br />
{{Quote|The multiple nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima plants beginning on March 11, 2011, are releasing large amounts of airborne radioactivity that has spread throughout Japan and to other nations; thus, studies of contamination and health hazards are merited. In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns. Some samples of radioactivity in precipitation, air, water, and milk, taken by the U.S. government, showed levels hundreds of times above normal; however, the small number of samples prohibits any credible analysis of temporal trends and spatial comparisons. U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80 percent, compared with a previous 8.37 percent decrease. Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected. These preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986, which approximated final figures.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==== Rebuttals of Sherman & Mangano ====<br />
<br />
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study] Michael Moyer; Scientific American; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
In June [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ I wrote about] a claim that babies in the U.S. were dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation. A close look at the accusation revealed that the data used by the authors to make the argument showed no such thing. "That data is publicly available," I wrote, "and a check reveals that [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths]." The authors appeared to start from a conclusion—babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation—and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims.<br />
<br />
Now the authors have published a revised study ([http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf PDF]) in the [http://www.baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services]. A press release published to herald the article warns, "[http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease111219FukushimaReactorFallout.html 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Fallout]." This is an alarming accusation. Let's see how the authors defend it.<br />
<br />
First, the authors assert: "In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns." They provide no evidence for this assertion, no citation to back up their facts. The authors then note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitored radioactivity in milk, water and air in the weeks and months following the disaster. Ah, here must be the data, the careful reader hopes. Alas, "the number of samples for which the EPA was able to detect measurable concentrations of radioactivity is relatively few," the authors write. They then conclude, with evident disappointment, that "clearly, the 2011 EPA reports cannot be used with confidence for any comprehensive assessment of temporal trends and spatial patterns of U.S. environmental radiation levels originating in Japan." In other words, the EPA didn't find evidence for the plume that our entire argument depends on, so "clearly" we can't trust the agency's data.<br />
<br />
Yet even if there isn't evidence for a plume, where do all the dead people come from? Here, from the abstract, is the chain of reasoning: "U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks....Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths." In sum: Sloppy statistics killed 14,000 people.<br />
<br />
To unpack a little more, the authors take mortality figures from the [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports]. I talk a little about these reports in my [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ original piece]. Suffice it to say that they are an incomplete record of deaths in the U.S. (as the authors acknowledge). The authors draw a hard line at the week of March 20, 2011, the 12th week of the year. They sum up all deaths around the country for both the 14 weeks preceding and the 14 weeks following March 20, 2011. They do the same for 2010. They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010. The 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2011 (presumably before the radiation plume arrived and spread across the land) include only 2.34 percent more dead people than the 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2010. Since the CDC only reports on about 23.5 percent of all deaths, the authors claim, they helpfully multiply the supposed "excess" by 1/0.235 to arrive at the final number of 13,893 deaths.<br />
<br />
No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are [http://www.radiation.org/ anti-nuclear activists] unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the "excess" deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.<br />
<br />
The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-health-risks-scrutin radiation from Fukushima is dangerous], and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coming-clean-about-nuclear-power serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play] in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.<br />
<br />
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.<br />
<br />
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)<br />
<br />
Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/2011/12/20/fukushima-alarmist-claim-obscure-medical-journal-proceed-caution Fukushima: Alarmist Claim? Obscure Medical Journal? Proceed With Caution] Barbara Feder Ostrov; University of Southern California Center for Health Journalism blog; 20 Dec 2011<br />
{{Quote|1=<br />
'''UPDATE: Click [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n here] for a response from International Journal of Health Services Editor-in-Chief Vicente Navarro.'''<br />
<br />
The [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy press release] trumpeted a startling claim: researchers had linked radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster to 14,000 deaths in the United States, with infants hardest hit.<br />
<br />
"This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima," the press release bragged in announcing the study's publication today. The press release, which compared the disaster's impact to Chernobyl, appeared via PR Newswire on mainstream news sites, including the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/19/4132989/medical-journal-article-14000.html#storylink=cpy Sacramento Bee] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://news.yahoo.com/medical-journal-article-14-000-u-deaths-tied-160111170.html Yahoo! News].<br />
<br />
Casual readers who didn't realize this was only a press release could be forgiven for thinking this was a spit-out-your-coffee story. But with a little online research and guidance from veteran health journalists [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer], I quickly learned that there's a lot less to [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,6,13;journal,1,165;browsepublicationsresults,7,24; this study] and to the medical journal that published it. Read on for their advice on what journalists can learn from this episode.<br />
<br />
Normally, reporters are supposed to feel better about research that's been peer-reviewed before publication in a scientific journal. But the claims of the press release were just so outlandish, warning bells went off.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, the authors, Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, published a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/is-the-increase-in-baby-deaths-in-the-us-a-result-of-fukushima-fallout/ version of this study] in the political newsletter Counterpunch, where it was quickly criticized. The critics charged that the authors [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2011/06/21/counterpunch-verifies-infant-mortality-fraud-but-seems-to-create-one-themselves/ had cherry-picked federal data on infant deaths] so they would spike around the time of the Fukushima disaster. Passions over nuclear safety further muddied the debate: both researchers and some critics had activist baggage, with the researchers characterized as anti-nuke and the critics as pro-nuke.<br />
<br />
As Scientific American's Michael Moyer [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ writes]: "The authors appeared to start from a conclusion-babies are dying because of Fukushima radiation-and work backwards, torturing the data to fit their claims."<br />
<br />
So how did such a seemingly flawed study wind up in a peer-reviewed journal?<br />
<br />
I researched the journal, the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0020-7314 International Journal of Health Services], and its editor, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/1041/Navarro/Vicente Vicente Navarro]. Navarro, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's prestigious school of public health, looked legit, but the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0020-7314_International_Journal_of_Health_Services journal's "impact factor"] (a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ measure of a research journal's credibility and influence]) was less impressive. (I emailed and called Navarro for comment; I'll [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n update this post] if I hear back from him.)<br />
<br />
I asked [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/ivanoransky Ivan Oransky], executive editor of Reuters Health and co-founder of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Retraction Watch] blog, and [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.healthnewsreview.org/ Health News Review] founder [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/users/gary-schwitzer-0 Gary Schwitzer]: how can journalists better evaluate when to cover (and more importantly, when not to cover) the medical research stories that cross their desks?<br />
<br />
Their consensus: just because a study's peer-reviewed doesn't mean it's credible. And evaluating a journal's impact factor can be helpful, but it's not sufficient.<br />
<br />
Here's what Oransky had to say:<br />
<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
I do use impact factor to judge journals, while accepting that it's an imperfect measure that is used in all sorts of inappropriate ways (and, for the sake of full disclosure, is a [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ Thomson Scientific product], as in Thomson Reuters). I find it helpful to rank journals within a particular specialty. It's not the only metric I use to figure out what to cover, but if I'm looking at a field with dozens or even more than 100 journals, it's a good first-pass filter. There's competition to publish in journals, which means high-impact journals have much lower acceptance rates. And if citations are any measure at all of whether journals are read, then they're obviously read more, too.<br />
<br />
I looked up the journal in question, and it's actually ranked 45th out of 58 in the Health Policy and Services category (in the social sciences rankings) and 59th out of 72 in the Health Care Sciences & Services category (in the science rankings).<br />
<br />
As to how this could get published in a peer-reviewed journal, well, not all peer review is created equal. Higher-ranked journals tend to have more thorough peer review. (They also, perhaps not surprisingly, have [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://bjoern.brembs.net/comment-n811.html higher rates of retractions]. Whether that's because people push the envelope to publish in them, or there are more eyeballs on them, or there's some other reason, is unclear. But there's no evidence that it's because their peer review is less thorough.)<br />
<br />
Finally, I'd refer readers to this [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html great primer on peer review] by Maggie Koerth-Baker.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Gary Schwitzer also provided these helpful tips for journalists:<br />
{{qq|1=<br />
1. Brush up on the writings of [https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ John Ioannidis], who has written a great deal in recent years about the flaws in published research.<br />
<br />
2. Journalists who live on a steady diet of journal articles almost by definition promote a rose-colored view of progress in research if they don't grasp and convey the publication bias in many journals for positive findings. Negative or null findings may not be viewed as sexy enough. Or they may be squelched prior to submission. While perhaps not a factor in this one case, it nonetheless drives home the point to journalists about the need to critically evaluate studies.<br />
<br />
3. In this case, a journalist would be well-served by a friendly local biostatistician's review.<br />
<br />
4. It is always more helpful to focus on the quality of the study rather than the impact factor of the journal or the reputation of the researcher (for reasons Ivan articulated). However, these are legitimate questions to ask any published researcher: "Why did you choose to submit your work to that journal? Did you submit it elsewhere and was it rejected? If so, what feedback did you get from the peer reviewers?"<br />
}}<br />
'''Related Posts:'''<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160617172903/http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/21/fukushima-fallout-and-infant-deaths-international-journal-health-services-vicente-n Fukushima Fallout and Infant Deaths: International Journal of Health Services' Vicente Navarro Responds]<br />
}}<br />
<br />
In a post [http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/ JOSEPH MANGANO NEVER STOPS, AND HE NEVER GETS IT RIGHT] on the "Nuclear Power Yes Please blog" on 29 Aug 2012, "LANTZELOT" writes:<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* '''Mangano claims that the total number of deaths in Japan rose with 4.8% during 2011, compared with the "normal" increase of 1.5%.''' There is no "normal" increase of 1.5%, though for the last 20 years the average increase in the number of deaths (due to an ageing population and decreasing birth rate) has been about 2%. For individual years the increase varies drastically, being above 4% six times since 1990. Thus the 4.8% increase during 2011 is not very spectacular.<br />
<br />
* '''Out of the about 1.2 million Japanese that die every year the 4.8% increase means an excess of 57,900 deaths compared with 2010. When subtracting the victims of the tsunami and earthquake there is still an excess of 38,700 deaths with no obvious cause.''' Mangano fails to mention that also in 2010 there was an "excess" of more than 55,000 deaths, compared with the year before. Yes, that is 55,000 excess deaths without a tsunami, without the release of radioactivity, and without alarmistic claims by Mangano.<br />
<br />
* '''"38,700 deaths with no obvious cause", or "38,700 additional unexplained deaths" is repeated, implying that maybe Fukushima did it.''' The majority of the deaths are not unexplained, they are classified into about 130 different categories, carefully filed by the MHLW. There is however a category called "Other causes" which include those deaths that can not be classified according to the other categories. For 2011 this category has about 5,000 deaths, which may still sound alarming. It should be noted that this is only 150 more than for 2010, and the variation between different years may be much larger than that. Furthermore, those deaths from "other causes" are not mysterious or due to some death ray directly from Fukushima, they just do not fit into any of the other 130 categories.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{refs}}<br />
<br />
=== William T. Vollmann - No Immediate Danger ===<br />
<br />
[http://progressandperil.com/2018/04/09/the-ideology-of-fear-william-t-vollman-and-nuclear-power/ The Ideology of Fear: William T. Vollmann and Nuclear Power] Will Boisvert; Progress and Peril; 9 Apr 2018<br />
: Review of No Immediate Danger: Volume One of Carbon Ideologies<br />
<br />
=== Debunking ===<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/ Are Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Really Over?] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 2 Sep 2013<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/ More Fukushima Scaremongering Debunked] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 28 Oct 2013<br />
: "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima"<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/11/25/dire-warnings-and-melting-starfish-fukushima-fear/ Dire Warnings and Melting Starfish: Fukushima Fearmongering, Volume 3] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 25 Nov 2013<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: The ocean is broken. <br />
* CLAIM: David Suzuki's Dire Warning. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima is as bad as 14,000 Hiroshima bombs.<br />
* CLAIM: The scary radiation map. <br />
* CLAIM: Cancer rates are spiking in Fukushima's children. <br />
* CLAIM: Fukushima radiation is the cause of an epidemic of melting sea stars. <br />
}}<br />
<br />
[https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/01/20/fukushima-fear-vol-4/ Fukushima Fear, Vol. 4: More Nonsense Than You Can Shake a Giant Squid At] Mike Rothschild; Skeptoid blog; 20 Jan 2014<br />
{{Quote|<br />
* CLAIM: OMG! A giant squid beached itself in Santa Monica! Fukushima! <br />
* CLAIM: Two underground nuclear explosions rocked the Fukushima site on New Year's Eve, forcing Russia's Ministry of Defense to go on high alert — and causing TEPCO to quietly admit that Reactor 3 was melting down. GAME OVER!!! <br />
* CLAIM: Radioactive steam was seen pouring off Reactor 3, meaning it's in the middle of a meltdown. <br />
* CLAIM: A dude with a Geiger counter went to a California beach and found radiation levels off the charts! Evacuate the west coast at once!<br />
* CLAIM: 98% of the Pacific sea floor is covered in dead creatures nuked by Fukushima.<br />
* CLAIM: A mass die-off of sardines in the Pacific is because of Fukushima radiation. <br />
* CLAIM: California scientists are going to start monitoring kelp forests, because they know Fukushima radiation is killing us all!<br />
* CLAIM: The US government bought 14 million potassium iodide doses to protect the wealthy elite from radiation! APOCALYPSE AHOY!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[http://www.earthtouchnews.com/oceans/oceans/heres-your-go-to-source-for-debunking-all-the-fukushima-fables Here's your go-to source for debunking all the Fukushima fables] Sarah Keartes; Earth Touch News; 25 Feb 2016<br />
{{Quote|From "mutant" eels to fish "tumours", viral stories linking the Fukushima nuclear disaster to seemingly strange marine events are probably crowding your news feed. And each time one pops up, radiation-related panic spirals ensue.}}<br />
<br />
[https://m.facebook.com/1561335957440623/photos/a.1561349920772560.1073741827.1561335957440623/1681156132125271/?type=3&source=54 what you get searching Google images for Fukushima] Refutations to Anti-Nuclear Memes; facebook<br />
<br />
== Onagawa ==<br />
[http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 Onagawa: The Japanese nuclear power plant that didn’t melt down on 3/11]<br />
<br />
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160403020718/http://energyforhumanity.org/nuclear/nuclear-is-normal-when-your-local-reactor-is-the-safest-place-in-the-world/ Nuclear is Normal: When Your Local Reactor is the Safest Place in the World] Energy For Humanity (via Internet Archive Wayback Machine); 6 Mar 2016<br />
{{Quote|<br />
1993. The second boiling water reactor at the Tōhoku Electric Co’s Onagawa nuclear station is completed after a three and a half year build, costing $2.64 billion in today’s US dollars. The site is already elevated and fortified beyond historical tsunami indications, the legacy of a corporate safety culture instilled by vice president Yanosuke Hirai. This diligence pervaded and persisted through the company, driving safety focus and disaster preparedness. A further unit is later constructed beside Onagawa-2. The plant operates well above average Japanese availability factor.<br />
<br />
The response of Onagawa to the natural disasters in 2011 has been detailed in the literature by senior personnel, as well as by an independent journalist. All three reactors shut down automatically, as designed, when the quake struck. Workers were quick to organise and get to work ensuring the plant’s safety. Backup power sytems including diesel generators and offsite power lines were safe from the waves and continued to cool the decay heat within the reactor cores. Tsunami damage was limited to a non-safety switchgear fire and auxiliary building flooding.<br />
<br />
The safety and electricity at the plant in the midst of unprecedented devastation drew local survivors. Hundreds of people were housed in Onagawa’s gymnasium for three months and provided with warmth and supplies.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Cleanup ==<br />
<br />
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ Clearing the Radioactive Rubble Heap That Was Fukushima Daiichi, 7 Years On] Tim Hornyak; Scientific American; 9 Mar 2018<br />
: The water is tainted, the wreckage is dangerous, and disposing of it will be a prolonged, complex and costly process</div>Sisussman